darth_ender

I'm not trying to bring anything up, but I don't want to continue posting.  This will be my last for the day

walkingdork said:

darth_ender said:

^Not my point of view.  I work in behavioral health with children 0-5 years old--children that only qualify for my program if they receive Medicaid.  I'm not into state mandated insurance, but I do believe that some sort of option should be available for everyone.  Ideally that's how our system would work, with the poor qualifying for welfare, but it's inefficient, broke government trying to manage this so it never works.  I hear you though.  That's one reason I am a self-admitted RINO.  I'm much more of a middle of the road independent in reality.

I think even if people don't want to cover the health of other humans through taxation there should at least be full and complete coverage for children. Children can't help the circumstances of their parents.

I can buy that.

As for your previous comment, as well as Frink's held tongue (that's not like you, Frink ;), I know babies are damaging, but if you got drunk, a perfectly legal and enjoyable (to many) activity, and did something stupid that resulted in someone else living on a life support system.  Now let's say that this life support system required that your body provide nutrients to this injured person (an abortion advocate created this analogy, not me, only she left out the part where you are responsible for the person being hooked up to you).  Would it be right or wrong for you to disconnect yourself from this life support system and allow the other individual to die?  It would certainly be damaging to you to remain on it.  But you did make the choice to drink, which ultimately led to this person's needing it.

You are comparing the act of love making to drunk driving? Crackheads may be crackheads but they should not be denied love or loving each other through intercourse. However if two crackheads who love each other dearly get pregnant they should have the right (and be encouraged) to have an abortion.

I realize that you were talking about casual sex, but even then I would argue that sex is a more natural and socially accepted behavior than driving drunk.

What I'm talking about is not whether it is socially acceptable but rather if it's responsible.  If you can't accept the consequences for having sex, then you aren't responsible enough to have sex.  You are responsible for someone else's life at that point.

I'm sorry that God (or Mother Nature) decided that females carry the babies.  Take that up with them.  But instead of leveling the playing field by killing innocent children, couldn't the playing field be leveled by demanding more of irresponsible fathers?

I'm not trying to level the playing field on who chooses whether abortion is appropriate, I'm saying mother nature gave them the baby carrying duties they should be the ones deciding whether they are able to properly take on that duty. Before technology, nature would help make that decision for them. Thousands of years ago if you were poor or an addict, you would not have the physical health to carry a baby.

I still feel the fathers should be required to take more responsibility for being the sperm donors.  You may be interested to know that a mother who abuses drugs is held legally responsible for the health of her child when born and CPS removes that child.  In the case of a poor and malnourished mother, nature would ultimately save the mother over the child (though you'd be amazed at how the female body gives so much preference to the child first), but that doesn't make it right for someone who has the means to afford proper foods and should avoid drugs to be irresponsible.

I know that this thread will do nothing to change anyone's mind.  I just will never see the logic.  Injuring mothers, family economic difficulties, family contentedness, healthy sexual relationship...all very important considerations.  Killing someone...oh, wow, that outweighs all other considerations to me.

By terminating an abortion before a certain point you are not killing a thinking, feeling person, you are ending the potential of a thinking, feeling person. You make it seem like it's premeditated murder.

I don't think it's premeditated murder because it is legal and socially acceptable.  However, if everyone saw the world my way, which is of course the absolutely correct way ;), they might think of it like that.  As for killing potential, this seems to be one of the few cases where we find it acceptable to kill the potential for something great.  If we found that there was the potential for life to develop on Mars, and just before it did, we sterilized the whole planet so we could colonize it, would you find that acceptable?  That's certainly not a thinking, feeling something.  It's merely the potential for non-thinking, non-feeling life.  Yet I have a feeling we'd protect it because of its potential greatness.  How are "potential" people any less deserving of a chance?

Do you believe that a miscarriage and a still-born birth are the same thing? Should we start naming and burying miscarriages? Maybe I should open up a miscarriage cemetery in my backyard. It's wouldn't take up a lot of space.

Many do name and bury their miscarried babies.  It's their way of mourning for the child they wanted.  I see nothing wrong with that.

I know this is long and CP3S doesn't like that, but one last thought for the day: as the baby progresses, it causes more damage to the mother's body.  Yet we illegalize abortion after a certain point that most pro-choicers agree is acceptable.  All the same rationales apply at this point: the damage to mom, the economic difficulties, the potential for an unwanted child...but now it's wrong to kill that baby.  Why the change of heart?  My point to this is that those other issues don't matter at the end of the day if we acknowledge that we are killing a person.  The defining point really hinges on how we define a person then, and when an unborn human gains its humanity.

The change of heart happens when there is brain activity the fetus begins to think and feel. 

Animals feel, yet we kill them.  And what is thinking?  There is already neural activity of some level.  But what we may refer to as thinking could also not begin till long after birth.  I still see this as an arbitrary point in time.

CP3S said:

I honestly don't even think the hard pro-life side takes the unborn baby that seriously. Almost all of you stated that you are okay with abortion in the cases or rape. So, because this human life was created out of the horrible actions of someone else, killing it is justifiable? Just about all of you also stated that when the mother's life is at risk it is also acceptable. If we say an unborn child is a person who deserves all the rights any post-natal human would be granted, how is putting the health and well being of the mother above that of the baby justifiable?

"Sorry, you have every right to live, but in this case you're going to have to die so your mother can live". Before the obvious rebuttal of "Well, if the mother dies, so does the baby", there are so many cases where it is just a precaution that abortion is recommended on account of the mother's health. It is possible the mother and baby could both make it through the gestation period, or that the mother could make it long enough to carry the baby to the point that it is viable to live outside of the womb.

I agree. What darth_ender believes is an "innocent child" is suddenly put to death to save a mother who has already lived her life. That sounds messed up.

 

Just answered this.  And why put it in quotes.  Is the "innocent child" anything but, even if you don't think it has the rights of a person yet?

CP3S said:

darth_ender said:

I know this is long and CP3S doesn't like that,

I don't have a problem with long posts. I am not a mod. It doesn't matter if you make long posts. It doesn't matter if I did have a problem with long posts. You have a right to make long posts. Make long posts if you want.

My comment from before was regarding the first page when every other four posts in a row were yours, and were all overly long. I commented that it wasn't worth the time or effort on my part to respond because it was muddled and confusing to have debate like that; especially since you already admitted nothing will ever change your mind. But you know all of that, because we've had this discussion already.

But yeah, I think it is a great idea to bring this up in each and every post you make in this thread! By all means, please keep doing that. I'll make an effort to do the same. You know, it might even be a good idea to go ahead and mention it in every post we make even in other threads. That could be a lot of fun!

 

but one last thought for the day: as the baby progresses, it causes more damage to the mother's body.  Yet we illegalize abortion after a certain point that most pro-choicers agree is acceptable.  All the same rationales apply at this point: the damage to mom, the economic difficulties, the potential for an unwanted child...but now it's wrong to kill that baby.  Why the change of heart?  My point to this is that those other issues don't matter at the end of the day if we acknowledge that we are killing a person. The defining point really hinges on how we define a person then, and when an unborn human gains its humanity.

Because she had several months to take all of that into account. It is not a change of heart, it is merely putting a limit on at what stage of development the mother can have the baby removed. With your logic you could easily say the same thing about a post-natal child, they are stressful and can cause the mother a lot of hardships both financially and mentally. It is like that episode of South Park where Cartman's mom decides she wants to have him aborted only to discover you can't abort eight year old kids.

Obviously a limit has to be drawn somewhere.

Yes, obviously.  My point is that the limit is rather arbitrary and acknowledges that an unborn human is still a person somewhere.  And what I meant by change of heart was not the mother's change of heart, but rather that of society and lawmakers.  I read in the news last week that a child born before the age of supposed viability has survived and is doing well.  Should we adjust the timeframe for abortions now?  Do/can they become people sooner?  I simply see personhood as genetically human.

I did make the same point about post-natal children.  When first born, they are still not even considered sentient in that they are not even self-aware.  We do have to draw the line somewhere, and I personally feel that "somewhere" is much earlier.

 

I honestly don't even think the hard pro-life side takes the unborn baby that seriously. Almost all of you stated that you are okay with abortion in the cases or rape. So, because this human life was created out of the horrible actions of someone else, killing it is justifiable? Just about all of you also stated that when the mother's life is at risk it is also acceptable. If we say an unborn child is a person who deserves all the rights any post-natal human would be granted, how is putting the health and well being of the mother above that of the baby justifiable?

"Sorry, you have every right to live, but in this case you're going to have to die so your mother can live". Before the obvious rebuttal of "Well, if the mother dies, so does the baby", there are so many cases where it is just a precaution that abortion is recommended on account of the mother's health. It is possible the mother and baby could both make it through the gestation period, or that the mother could make it long enough to carry the baby to the point that it is viable to live outside of the womb.

I think both these examples show that even pro-choicers admit somewhere deep down that an unborn child is not quite of equal value to that of a person. 

My point of view is that an unborn child is not that an unborn child is not of equal value to a person, but rather that we make efforts to save the life of as many as possible.  Consider the scenario where the mother's life is seriously at risk.  If the mother dies, the baby may live or may die.  If the baby dies, the mother will more likely live.  Also, the mother has more to live for.  She may have a family to care for, has loved ones who need her.  The child does not yet have such a place in society.  It's a horrible choice, but if I leaned one way or another, I'd lean toward the mother.  Let's now look at an example of conjoined ("Siamese") twins.  In most cases both will die if they remain joined.  If we separate them, one will likely die.  Which do we choose to have live?  The one who has the better chance of survival.

As for the rape case, I obviously will never be in those shoes, but I believe that if I were a woman and were raped and impregnated, I would still choose to allow the baby to live.  However, I also acknowledge here two things: 1) rape is a very damaging thing, physically and psychologically; 2) I may not agree with abortion even here, but at least see the opposing POV and am granting room for it in this case.  The mother could be very emotionally traumatized by rape and therefore her health is again endangered, though we're now speaking of her mental health.  It often leads to depression, and depression can lead to suicide and other adverse behaviors.  The pregnancy and delivery may exacerbate this depression.  Therefore, I grant room for others, though I personally even oppose it in this case.

Well, that's the beauty of the Internet.  We mean something one way, but it is easily perceived as intended differently.  I will drop the subject and try not to bring up the long post thing any longer.

I know :)

I have apologized if you didn't notice.  I wasn't bringing it up to harass you, but simply as a way to apologize for another lengthy comment, as I am prone to do.  And in the end, while it saddens me to read your rude comments, I don't feel that I am being nearly so disrespectful, and I doubt anyone reading our conversation here would see me as the more upset between the two of us.  I promise to drop it from now on.  Heck, if you like, I won't respond or reference anything you say since apparently this is such a big deal to you.  Just know that I have said I'm sorry for my agitating you (including in your PM box), have received no such acknowledgement or apology from you (perhaps you never did anything wrong), I don't think I'm overreacting nearly as much as you are, and I'm not going to such lengths to insult you for the annoying things you've done in this conversation.  Block me from now on if you've got a problem with me.  I think I'm done talking to you for the time being as well.

^I brought up this very point in one of my very long posts that you hate so much that I love to bring up all the time.  I think I've only done it once or twice, and not as a means of insulting you.  I don't know why you feel so compelled to take everything to an extreme.  You stated you don't mean any offense, but I doubt you are simply teasing.

You mentioned Sing Sing Sing before, and it's already a pretty familiar song, so I worried that it might not be a good idea because too many people would already know it.  However, there were some dance parts of that medley (maybe parts of Sing Sing Sing, I dunno, I'm not familiar with every aspect of it) that were unique enough that they could be used, and it would only be for 30 secs to a minutes anyway of music needed.  That could be a reasonable song to put there.  Good call my young padawan ;)

That's the purpose of the line, "I just need to do some...thinking," or as ronster suggested, "I just...need to be alone for a while."  I'm hoping that it's implied that he's simply going off to ponder on the recent paternity test (implied by putting on the glove while stating the line), internally torn about what to do.  I also want to draw your attention to the fact that I didn't use the first part of the lightsaber construction deleted scene.  I'm thinking of a way of having Vader reach out to Luke mentally.  I've been mulling over this idea: after the Emperor's arrival and sensing his desire "to continue his search for young Skywalker," Vader then goes to meditate, calls out to Luke, maybe show Luke in his cockpit with his eyes closed, and then move on to the next scene.

Now we know what's running through Luke's head, and we still have a reason to understand why he's so distraught when Leia asks him, "What is it?"

EDIT: Those are my thoughts as well on the Coruscant thing.  It just doesn't seem reasonable.  But this is a collaborative project, so I definitely want to hear the argument for putting it in there.

^Not my point of view.  I work in behavioral health with children 0-5 years old--children that only qualify for my program if they receive Medicaid.  I'm not into state mandated insurance, but I do believe that some sort of option should be available for everyone.  Ideally that's how our system would work, with the poor qualifying for welfare, but it's inefficient, broke government trying to manage this so it never works.  I hear you though.  That's one reason I am a self-admitted RINO.  I'm much more of a middle of the road independent in reality.

As for your previous comment, as well as Frink's held tongue (that's not like you, Frink ;), I know babies are damaging, but if you got drunk, a perfectly legal and enjoyable (to many) activity, and did something stupid that resulted in someone else living on a life support system.  Now let's say that this life support system required that your body provide nutrients to this injured person (an abortion advocate created this analogy, not me, only she left out the part where you are responsible for the person being hooked up to you).  Would it be right or wrong for you to disconnect yourself from this life support system and allow the other individual to die?  It would certainly be damaging to you to remain on it.  But you did make the choice to drink, which ultimately led to this person's needing it.

I'm sorry that God (or Mother Nature) decided that females carry the babies.  Take that up with them.  But instead of leveling the playing field by killing innocent children, couldn't the playing field be leveled by demanding more of irresponsible fathers?

I know that this thread will do nothing to change anyone's mind.  I just will never see the logic.  Injuring mothers, family economic difficulties, family contentedness, healthy sexual relationship...all very important considerations.  Killing someone...oh, wow, that outweighs all other considerations to me.

I know this is long and CP3S doesn't like that, but one last thought for the day: as the baby progresses, it causes more damage to the mother's body.  Yet we illegalize abortion after a certain point that most pro-choicers agree is acceptable.  All the same rationales apply at this point: the damage to mom, the economic difficulties, the potential for an unwanted child...but now it's wrong to kill that baby.  Why the change of heart?  My point to this is that those other issues don't matter at the end of the day if we acknowledge that we are killing a person.  The defining point really hinges on how we define a person then, and when an unborn human gains its humanity.

Quit pretending like you're a nice guy ;)

Nice job!  Always impressed with the things you do.

I downloaded all but the same two last night.  I'm anxious to subject my wife to this sort of torture.  How long must we wait in this agonizing state of limbo?!?

timdiggerm said:

I haven't had a chance to read the script, and won't until tonight at the earliest, but I had a thought Re: The Bothan Spies intro

So, other than the obvious problem of filming an entirely new intro sequence featuring the adventures of several actors in Bothan costumes, with props, blue screens, stormtroopers and more, there's the story problem of none of the main characters being present. This is a particularly difficult problem to overcome because we can really only film masked characters.

But what if Leia, in the Boushh armor, was part of the operation? By introducing Boushh early on as part of the Rebel Spy operation, the viewer will already consider Boushh a separate character, making the Leia-reveal more surprising. It doesn't resolve the "No Main Characters" problem for the first viewing, but it fixes it on subsequent viewings. It also gives us a new way to see Leia as a fighter, which I suppose is always good?

Boushh's final appearance in that sequence could involve getting into some sort of personal ship, receiving a message and looking at a hologram/photo of the Falcon parked on Tatooine. Hopefully aspersions could be cast on the character during the Bothan Operation scene, causing the audience to doubt Boushh's allegiance. The word "Bounty Hunter" could be used. On first view, the viewer should think "Oh no, this creepy bounty hunter has found the Falcon!", a thought which will be completed when he appears with Chewie. On second view, the viewer will know that Leia has been contacted and told where to meet Lando & Co.

I am really torn on this scene, as it would extremely difficult to complete and is not necessary.  However, I think it would be really cool, and could allow for a little monitoring of the espionage to increase the tension and paces the story a bit better.  Plus I really like the idea of Leia as Boushh.  Often we see things that don't immediately make sense and only after a revelation later do the earlier scenes gain their full meaning (and like you said, on subsequent viewings as well).  If/when we do make such a scene, I think this would be a great way to do it.

@ronster, I forgot to mention that I still couldn't watch your clip.  I've already neglected much of my job while working on the script and this site, and had an extra project to do last night that I wasn't expecting (helping someone move), so when I got home in the evening I only briefly came here and had no more time to look at anything else.  Sorry, but I should be able to get to it by today, and then I will comment.

I do have one thing to say, since you mentioned it earlier.  I like the idea of Leia's injury just before Vader taunts Luke about her joining the dark side.  However, the way I conceive the battle includes the shootout in the bunker taking place after their second time getting in, which means she would be injured while they break in.  Yet she would appear to be in perfectly good shape at that point.  Maybe you pull it off well in your cut, but that problem occurs to me.

Ronster said:

the transition timing needs to be a bit longer between Luke leaving Dagobah and arriving on tatooine Vader arriving on DSII is not Long Enough to show convey the distance travelled.

to pad this out would there be any way to insert somthing..

my suggestions:

the rebel fleet deep space and Delivering the Plans to Mothman? Only an Idea and the sequence is fine just feel it needs more transition time.

Believe it or not, this transition was my big hangup.  I didn't know how to order the scenes to effectively get Luke from Dagobah to Tatooine.  However, my hope was that after speaking with Ben, it would be implicit that Luke had left Dagobah so that after we see Vader on the Death Star and go to the X-wing approaching Tatooine, it feels like time has passed and that Luke has traveled the full distance.

I don't know about incorporating the Mothman into this story, as the Mothman Prophecies seem to be completely unrelated to Star Wars.  Oh, wait!  You mean Mon Mothma! ;)  If we do include the Rebels stealing the plans, that could be a very good idea.  However, the Mon Mothma footage is very limited, so I don't know how to effectively pull that off.  Perhaps if we include a ship in the beginning involved in stealing the plans, then later include the same ship simply entering the hangar of a Mon Cal cruiser, it could be implicit enough without showing any characters.

Ronster said:

my favourite line....So Far

Oola and the fat female dancer performs... Lapti Nek is much sleazier and fits the setting better IMO

I hate both songs and the accompanying puppets or CGI characters.  Not to mention there is little need for this scene except establishing a trap door that leads to something scary.  I think it would be best just to see Oola dancing to a much better song briefly, Jabba tries to pull her close, she resists and falls to her death.  However if I'm in the minority here, this of course can stay.

Can we cut this please...

1.The Rancor KEEPERS have come into the cage and are examining their dead beast. One of them breaks down and weeps.

YES!  I mean to do so and forgot.  It's already done for my revised version.

A herd of wild banthas treks across Tatooine's dunes.[d1] 

---

 [d1]Some don’t like the banthas but I think they’re fine.

2.agreed but it is the second shot or smaller looking herd that needs to be removed IMO

 

This is the SARLACC[d1] 

---

 [d1]I don’t mind the Special Edition beak as much as others do, but I don’t mind if it is removed either.

3. Because the special edition tentacles move more realistically i suggest a combination of both especially for the establishing shot of the sarlac but for me i prefer no beak

 

 

 

Luke has hold on one of the rigging ropes from the mast. He gathers Leia in his other arm and kicks the trigger of the deck gun. The gun explodes into the deck as Luke and Leia swing out toward the skiff.

[d1] 

---

 [d1]Show more damage on Luke’s hand to better match when he’s on the X-wing.

4.For me it was always weird that he was holding his Light sabre as high as he could vertically in the air when his hand gets shot as there was nobody near him... I think they just wanted to show this as easily as possible.

5.Droid torture can go as you suggested but for me the main problem is the stupid tentacle that grabs C3PO in the corridor

I quite like ED-9v9 but if it gets cut I'm not bothered either.

LUKE: I'll meet you back at the fleet.[d1] 

 

LEIA: (over comlink) Hurry. The Alliance should be assembled by now.

 

LUKE: I will.

---

 [d1]Redundant.

LUKE[d1] : No, not yet.  I have to do some…thinking.

---

 [d1]This line would have to be dubbed.

6. This final line does work somewhat.. But better would be "I need to be alone for a while..."

Sometimes the advanced text editor is weird: I can't break the quote in some places for comment so I'll just finish here.  Bantha herds can easily be cut with no sacrifice to the plot, particularly the smaller herd (which I'm sure is supposed to appear distant, but in reality does look out of scale).  I would agree about the beak being cut but the tentacles remaining.  That would mean more work that simply choosing which version to edit in, but if our effects guys are willing, so am I.

It is weird that he holds his saber high, and furthermore that someone so close would miss his body and only hit him in the hand, but it's kind of important that it gets damaged and I can't think of a more reasonable way to show it.

EV9D9 is interesting, but that scene is unnecessary and the torture is stupid IMO.  I even thought so as a kid.

I agree, the final line would be better.  I think it would be good if there were a pause, perhaps with him saying, "I just...need to be alone for a while."  Good call.

File not found x22   :( 

I actually have several healthy, stable, non-sexual relationships.  Only one relationship in my life involves sex.  My point is that there is a higher priority, not that sex isn't important.

I may do a decent one, but I'm not sure.  I actually recorded a few voices on my mp3 player and can upload them tomorrow for your critiquing.  I hope someone could do a better Luke though.

Oh, I remember hearing about this edit once, but it seemed to disappear just before its release ;)

I figured the crawl could use a little work.  Thanks for the suggestion.  I'm not sure what determines if something gets capitalized.  These are the only words capitalized in all six films:

ARMY OF THE REPUBLIC: AOTC
DEATH STAR: ANH (not in ROTJ)
GALACTIC EMPIRE: ROTJ

So I suppose I wouldn't capitalize anything, or maybe just Death Star.  As I keep working on the script I'll make a few changes to this early section including altering the capitalization.

You are right about the Death Star theme.  It's also used as a motif when Rebel ships enter the Death Star II superstructure.  Nevertheless, I personally feel it would be a dramatic intro to the Death Star as it was when the Falcon is tractored into the DSI (not the true intro, but really the first time we get a scope of how big the thing is).  I don't know how well it would mesh with the Imperial March either, but if the two could be made to weave together, I think it'd be a nice touch.  But maybe I'm wrong.

Interesting suggestion, Cobb.  What do others think about getting Luke to shut the Rancor gate?  Thanks for the kind words.  I guess great minds think alike ;)

MrInsaneA said:

darth_ender said:

^This is why I feel the script needs additional ships to be involved in the attack.  I think if several capital ships engage in the battle, focusing their fire on the bridge section, then two fighters being the straws that broke the camel's back might be more believable.  Perhaps if it were made clearer that they were firing concussion missiles rather than simple laser blasts (what it looks like to me), then it might also come off better.

I agree about the lost Rebel footage and I'm going to try to include as much as possible, probably having to do some rough cuts with my Windows Live Movie Maker software as a template for those with the better toys.

I'm personally not a big fan of Coruscant being a significant plot point, both because of what I perceive as unrealistic (let's blow up the capital to stop the riots) and also it just doesn't seem to make sense story-wise.  It just seems like people are fishing for something more exotic.  If Endor orbits Coruscant and it is essentially background, that would be visually interesting, but I can't see a logical story reason to include it without some drastic rewriting of the whole movie.

I know I'm a nerd, but I didn't know what song was Across the Stars till tonight when I finally looked it up.  It's a pretty piece and would be neat to include somewhere, though the only place that seems truly fitting might be where Luke and Leia are talking about their mother.

A song I feel we might want to consider weaving into this movie somewhere might be the Death Star theme from A New Hope.  It essentially served as the bad guy song for the first movie, and I personally find it powerful and intimidating.  Perhaps some dramatic Death Star II reveal could include this piece.

Sorry to take so long on this early step folks.  I'll get it done soon.

I feel very strongly about what I'm about to say, so bear with me here:

I feel like ROTJ should feature a LOT of callbacks to previous themes in the Saga, seeing how it's the final film.  Some ideas I was thinking of were:

1. Duel of the Fates playing during parts of the space battle.

2. Across the Stars playing once or twice during very quiet moments pertaining to Luke/Vader and Luke/Leia/Mom

3. The Death Star theme, as previously mentioned. 

Anybody think this is a good idea? And if so, is there any other pieces of music you feel should be integrated?

I personally like your suggestions, especially number 3 ;)

Ronster, I still haven't gotten around to your video, but I think I should be able to tonight.  I again want to reiterate that I like a lot of your ideas.  I truly like the Boba Fett death idea in particular.  I was thinking, perhaps we could get this collaborative edit released in various forms.  Those interested could make a "Mark I" edit.  Then those with even more ambition and radical ideas could do a "Mark II" using the existing changes to help, then a "Mark II" and so on till this idea dries up.

Here is part 1 of my edited script.  It leaves a lot open for further suggestions, particularly during the whole Jabba subplot.  I really feel like I may have grabbed a good emotional formula with this, so consider carefully the flow before being too harsh or suggesting something too radical.  I personally like the slower intro, but as all OT movies start with bad guy ships, perhaps that spy scene could work out without disrupting the flow I've tried to create.  This starts with Dagobah, moves to the Death Star and Vader, moves to Tatooine and Han's rescue, and ends with Luke's X-wing and the Millennium Falcon parting.  I tried to add some colors and comments to make changes clearer (so you don't have to read the whole thing) as well as include commentary on the side.  Hope this is a worthwhile read.  There are no immensely drastic changes, but I think it alters the story and the mood in a way that I like.

http://www.4shared.com/office/imvWDYgy/ROTJ_script_edited_part_1.html?

Comments and suggestions are quite welcome.

EDIT: I also included some musical suggestions and meant to include more.  I also meant to include some pictures, taken from the wishlist, but I forgot.  Oh well, you still get a good sense of what I'm hoping for thus far.

Either the information should be stolen from Coruscant while the Death Star and Endor are far away, or else they shouldn't have to steal anything but a glance of the Death Star from a ship near Coruscant.  It would seem kind of silly to sneak onto Coruscant to steal information about the Death Star that can be seen hanging there in the sky.  If we were to make such a scene, I think it would be best to keep the Death Star away from the general populace (it is a secret construction project after all) while the Rebel spies managed to steal the info from Coruscant.

One thing I would really like to hear is why/how to use Coruscant.  I personally see it as needlessly complicated without adding much to the story.  But I would like to hear more ideas on how to make it work.  I do suggest, at least at this stage, that we keep things fairly close to the original story, so without some drastic rewriting, how could we include Coruscant (if you are a fan of the idea)?

timdiggerm said:

Although it should be pointed out that in Spence's Special Features, he talks about the idea of leaving Fett in, having Han intentionally hit his jetpack, not showing him actually falling into the Sarlaac's maw, and then showing him regaining consciousness and watching the Skiff fly away at the end. He left it out because his edit became much more Luke-centric, but I do like the idea.

Did I mention I like this idea too?  I still wonder if that's acceptable to leave him alive and never wrap up that loose thread or if it would be possible to finish him off later in the film.