deepanddark20

Speaking of burying hatchets on Thanksgiving...

We Americans like to forget how many hatchets were buried in Native Americans when we celebrate our Thanksgiving. Not that that's a "Star Wars" thought.... but it is random

SilverWook, if we were only basing our conclusions on Yoda and Anakin's ghosts, then we could speculate they only appeared on that one occasion to smile at Luke and then never came back. But Obi Wan's ghost has been communicating with Luke for years (ever since the Battle of Yavin).... why would he all of a sudden stop appearing after the Battle of Endor?

If anything, he's only been getting less ghostly with the passage of time. He progresses from being just a voice in ANH, to being a ghost who fades in and out floating motionless in TESB, to actually walking around things and sitting down in ROTJ.

By Episode VII, he'll probably be getting skin grafts and building himself a hut and giving piggy back rides to Han and Leia's kids.

An alternate retitle could be "Can forum members ignore deepanddark20's post?"

This thread should be retitled "Can forum members ignore history?"

I appreciate your interaction with my post, but have you heard the expression, "missing the forest for the trees"? I think that's what you're doing with my post. Convincing you that 1-6 comfortably belong together in one saga isn't my point.

At the risk of sounding like I can read your thoughts... I can't help but sense that your hatred for the prequels is motivating you to respond to my post the way you are, which I find odd because I probably hate the prequels more than you do! Going along with my post doesn't require you to set aside any of your hatred for 1-3, if you truly understand where I'm coming from. When you read my post, keep in mind that I think the prequels are atrocities.

You're getting hung up on the part of my post about how episodes 1-3 require the ending of episode 6 for their plot to be resolved (which really isn't debatable). This is not the same thing as saying that 4-6 need 1-3, or saying that 1-3 are legitimate, which is what you seem to be railing against. Since that part of my post was only building up to the main points, you're missing those points.

I think you're having a slightly different conversation than the one I'm trying to have. In the one you're having, you and I are on the same side.

I have tried to download the 5 Star Edition of Return of the Jedi, but nobody is seeding it. How does it compare to TB and GKar?

TeamBlu's work is exciting!

I'm not saying 1-6 fit together well, or are internally consistent. I'm on the team that hates the prequels! I personally keep 1-3 in a separate place away from 4-6. When 4-6 have changes inserted into them to make them more "consistent" with the prequels (such as Hayden's insertion into RoTJ), I agree with you that 4-6 are being made into Frankenstein creations. So I like your analogy.

However, by purposeful design, 1-6 is not structurally two trilogies. Structurally, you can either consider 4-6 a "trilogy" by ignoring the prequels (which is what I do, and probably what you do as well), or consider the whole thing to be a hexalogy by including the prequels. But two complete trilogies they are not.

Episodes 1-3 are referred to as a "trilogy" for conversational convenience. A true trilogy has a beginning, middle, and end. Episodes 1-3 have a beginning, middle, and middle. Without 4-6, 1-3 would be a fragment. That wouldn't be true if it were a real "trilogy." And this isn't by accident; it's because George Lucas chose to make them that way. He chose to make 1-3 in such a way that they change 4-6 from a trilogy into a 6-parter. He didn't have to go that route (and I tend to think it wasn't the best route). Episodes 1-3 could have had their own story distinct from 4-6, which ends up resolved at the end of 3 (in the same way that 6 ends resolved) but which included Anakin, Padme, the Emperor/Empire, Luke, Leia, etc. as elements of the larger separate story.

An example of this approach is The Hobbit, which has all the necessary story elements to set up The Lord of the Rings (Bilbo encountering Gollum and acquiring the ring for example) but tells its own separate story that gets fully resolved at the end. In this way, "The Hobbit" justifies having its own separate existence alongside Lord of the Rings. The story of the Star Wars prequels is information we mostly already had from watching 4-6, without offering additional story information of enough value to justify making another three movies instead of just letting us imagine it (which was better).

However I do hope my whole post doesn't get dismissed because of a hangup on the definition of a "trilogy."

Thanks skywalker89, but unless I'm mistaken it sounds like the GKar and TB releases would still be superior to your DVDs because they have good sound. However I do have a problem with how they sound because they are both PAL, so they sound a bit too high pitched (I don't know if there's a way to play PAL releases so that they don't sound this way).

They are also sourced from HD broadcast, not laserdisc. They may not be true HD captures, but they have a good picture (I noticed the GKar was one of Harmy's sources for his Return of the Jedi Despecialized HD).

I've quickly looked at the two of them and it seems like the GKar is slightly better looking than the TB (just by a little bit), but with the TB you get the English opening titles.

Ignoring the prequels is a nice thought, but I think it's a pipe dream. Episode VII will be taking place in the future of Episode VI, where it's already been established that Yoda, Obi Wan Kenobi, and Anakin Skywalker have retained their personalities as Force spirits. We know that the original characters (Luke, Han, Leia, etc.) are going to be in Episode VII, so it stands to reason that we're going to see Ewan McGregor and Hayden Christensen (and CGI Yoda) or else the movie's going to have some explaining to do as to why their spirits just suddenly stopped appearing. Those of you who want Episode VII to ignore the prequels: have fun with that part of the movie.

Since I've never believed that Luke would have been able to recognize Hayden's face at the end of Return of the Jedi (which is a problem I've always had with inserting Hayden there), I think it would be hilarious if Episode VII had a running joke about it: whenever Luke sees Hayden, his reaction is like "who are you and why do you keep appearing to me??" Kind of like the guy spraying the kid with the hose in "Billy Madison." I suppose Luke wouldn't recognize Ewan McGregor either. And how weird is it for Obi Wan to change from McGregor to Guiness and then BACK to McGregor again? But it's going to happen, because the ghosts wouldn't arbitrarily stop appearing after Episode VI.

In all seriousness though, there's a bigger issue that the prequels created for this sequel trilogy. Instead of making the prequels as a standalone trilogy with some elements that connect them to episodes 4-6, George Lucas chose to make it so that all 6 episodes form one story focused on one guy (Anakin/Vader). Everybody distinguishes between the "Sequel Trilogy" and the "Original Trilogy" as though we have two separate and distinct trilogies, but that's really not what they are. They are one 6 part story (hexalogy??).

1-3 don't stand alone as a complete trilogy story. Revenge of the Sith is no more resolved at the end than The Empire Strikes Back. I understand three movies were released during a different generation from the other three, with many different cast members. And I distinguish between "trilogies" because I love 4-6 and hate 1-3. But from a story perspective, we don't have 2 trilogies.

The issue this creates is: the sequel trilogy has to take up different subject matter now, because Vader is dead. This would be fine if Abrams' movies were a separate standalone series in the same universe and they left the numbering system of "1-6" alone to be a saga about the rise and fall and redemption of Darth Vader, but he's not doing that. He's calling these "VII, VIII, IX, etc."

This means that Star Wars is about to start becoming a very lopsided saga, where one long saga about Darth Vader unfolds across six episodes, followed by a trilogy at the end about something different (but with some familiar faces included). This is going to make the sequel story feel "tacked on" to the larger story about Vader, but only because Abrams is joining the two together as part of the same number sequence.

The only way to remedy this and restore "balance" to the saga (pun intended) would be if J.J. Abrams purposefully gives his Episode IX a very unresolved ending, and doesn't wrap up the story/character arc that he begins in Episode VII until his Episode XII. But I don't think that's what's being planned (I'm sure Disney will eventually go all the way to XII, but I think they're planning on making VII-IX a complete story that can stand on its own, rather than having one singular subject that starts with VII and ends with XII; I may be wrong). Lucas changed the Star Wars format from trilogy to hexalogy; and Abrams is acknowledging this with his Episode numbering but then contradicting himself with his intention to make a "trilogy" anyway.

Thank you very much russs15! I don't know if a more up to date list exists, but at least you've provided something to refer to.

I might be wrong, but the GKar edition and "TB release" seem to be the two best so far. I don't know how the others on that list measure up, but I am curious.

In that case, I'd better not eat any Thrawn. I have a shellfish allergy.

Thank you schorman13. It's nice to have another person on board with this.

Did you do this yourself? Have you been planning for a while to do a project like the one discussed in this thread?

Oh well, I guess an extra two years of waiting is no big deal. Perfect gift for the 50th anniversary of the movie!

It's working! It's working!  ;)

If it really does end up taking until December 24, 2025, then that should allow Harmy enough time to give it seamless branching with the '81 crawl  ;)

For some reason I find it supremely amusing that you use the term "deStalinization" in a response to Harmy.

"A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign"

They could add a Wookie celebration on Kashyyk (with Chewbacca's family from the Holiday Special in the frame if you look closely).

And I'm sure there will be one or two new planets in the sequel trilogy which could be thrown in to tie the trilogies together, just like they shoehorned Naboo in there in the 2004 edition even though it's otherwise never shown or mentioned in the original trilogy.

Of course I'm being facetious, but if these movies were treated by their own creator as though nothing is sacred about them, how much of a stretch is it for Disney to take that as a precedent for how they treat them (I've said it before and I'll say it again... watch out for rereleases with the 20th century fox fanfare replaced with the Disney castle...... the logos HAVE changed before.....)

George may be done fiddling with the movies, but Disney hasn't even begun yet.....

Well said, DominicCobb.

At the end of Return of the Jedi, after they've just destroyed the second Death Star and the Emperor and Darth Vader, maybe the Empire is destroyed, maybe it isn't, but one thing's for damn sure: it's too soon for those inserted Special Edition shots of planetary-scale partying on Bespin, Tatooine, Coruscant, Naboo, or whatever other planets will be added in the post-sequel-trilogy version (let's not kid ourselves into thinking 2011 was the last time the movies will ever be changed).

m_s0, you make a good point about there being no information on VII... It's like this thread starts out by saying J.J. Abrams will direct it, and then from there everybody just talks about whatever they want because that's all we know. Still feels like the focus of this thread should stay on Episode VII though, but if you guys don't care then I honestly don't care either.

m_s0, we are just going to have to agree to disagree in a friendly manner about ROTJ being one of the best movies ever made.... I respect your difference of opinion. (It's probably a mistake for me to mention this right now, but would it make your head explode if I told you I feel the same way about Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom?)

Reegar and m_s0, I have to thank you both for being very kind in what you've said to me. I really appreciate it.

Not to keep provoking, but I definitely think the gap between Star Wars and Empire could be criticized. I don't criticize it, but I just think it could be done (and probably has been done). The gap between Empire and Jedi could be distinguished from the gap between Star Wars and Empire, and arguments could be made about one gap being worse than the other, just like I distinguish between the flaws of the o.t. being acceptable and the flaws of the p.t. being unacceptable, but it's all differences of opinion (which doesn't mean it isn't fun to discuss).

I have to admit though that I really don't like debate, even if I strongly disagree with someone, it's just not my thing personally. I find it exhausting and I'm always dissatisfied with my part in the debate (probably my perfectionism kicking in). I much prefer to watch other people debate each other; I love that actually.

Sorry, m_s0, I typed that up before your post was posted. I see you already commented on some of my points.

I'm going to stop pursuing this topic on this thread since this thread is supposed to be about J.J. Abrams and Episode VII and I don't think I can change anyone's mind about Return of the Jedi anyway

I think ROTJ could be cut a little more slack. Sure, not every Jedi has an evil father who needs to be redeemed, but Luke isn't like any other Jedi. They were all trained when the Jedi order still existed. There may have been a more "standardized" test for becoming a Jedi in those days. Luke is the first one to ever be trained in an environment where the Jedi Order has been decimated. His training to become a Jedi is analogous to Rocky Balboa training in the wilderness using logs and rocks and other creative uses of his surroundings. It isn't too much of a stretch that since Luke's circumstances are unique, his final test would be unique.

I don't necessarily agree with your diagnosis of that particular part of Jedi's story. However, I confess.....

I have always felt that characters jump a bit between Star Wars episodes, rather than smoothly transitioning (Luke jumps to being a full fledged Jedi, Han Solo jumps to being a fully committed member of the Alliance who's no longer a loner, etc.). These are great character arcs, but they are partially executed by using the time between episodes as a shorthand.

To some extent I do believe these jumps can be explained by the events we aren't shown between episodes (I actually like that these movies are made in such a way as to imply that the in-between time was not irrelevant; it stimulates the imagination about what happened during those times and it helps the world of the movies to feel fuller).

But that explanation only goes so far, and I have to admit it doesn't go far enough to perfectly prevent these character inconsistencies from being a flaw.

Over the years I have come to realize that there are different types of flaws a movie can have, and some types of flaws make it impossible for me to love a movie whereas other types don't. The flaws of the prequels fall into the former category for me, while the flaws of the O.T. fall into the latter. I wish the only flaw in the prequels was characters taking leaps of development in between episodes; I could have lived with that. For example I could accept that 20 year old Anakin is so radically different from 10 year old Anakin if his acting and dialogue were at least at a minimal level of acceptability.

This jumping/inconsistency of characters between episodes is not something that only ROTJ is guilty of. TESB is not innocent.

I'm not trying to change anyone's mind on here, and I don't think my opinion matters more than anyone else's. I just see a need for more representation on here of the opinion that ROTJ is one of the best movies ever made, since the opposing opinion already has sufficient support on the forum. I think someone else would do a better job than me though, since I'm way better at having opinions than defending them.

I just started having a strong attraction to the young Carrie Fisher within the last year or so, and I don't understand it because for most of my life I found her to be very plain and she didn't do anything for me at all. Then out of nowhere I recently started thinking she was the hottest thing. And no, I didn't just hit puberty.... I'm almost 36. So I can't explain this sudden 180 in my perspective.

I'm wondering if I'm the only one or if anyone else had a change in perspective on Carrie when you reached 30's or 40's. Maybe there's something about her style of looks that's very appealing to more mature men.

I still think something very unfortunate happened to her face and voice after The Empire Strikes Back, but please feel free to keep posting these lovely bikini photos (and thank you).

I think this is actually a major reason that in the prequels the Jedi talk about a set of "trials" that have to be faced before your Jedi-hood is official. Training alone isn't enough for Jedi status. I think that was put in the prequels to offer the explanation that Return of the Jedi was lacking for why Luke had to confront Vader. Since the Jedi have been disbanded in Luke's time, the official trials that existed in the Old Republic days aren't available to him anymore, so his circumstances have to be used to create a custom set of trials for him.

Mind you, I'm not saying this explains away what you guys have said about Return of the Jedi, since I hate the prequels and don't think that the original movies should require the prequels to make sense. But two things I would say in defense of Return of the Jedi are: 1) everything that requires training also requires testing before official "graduation," I can't think of any examples from the real world that contradict that, so we don't need the prequels to justify the concept; and 2) when a movie leaves room for the viewer's imagination to fill in certain details that are not fully explained, that doesn't always have to be seen as a flaw (though it sometimes is)

"Dark Lord of the Sith" has been used as Darth Vader's title ever since 1976, in the novelization of Star Wars. That's 6 months before the movie even came out, so the word "Sith" is older than the movies. It's as old as "The Journal of the Whills." Calling it a "prequelism" just because it was never spoken in a line of dialogue in the original trilogy ignores the fact that it's been around just as long as the original trilogy has.

What it meant was vague back then; it wasn't used to refer to the Emperor and it didn't necessarily have to be a sect of the dark side. Of course if J.J. Abrams and Disney use the word now, they are bound by the specific definition it's been given over the years.

I don't think it's enough to distinguish between words used on screen vs. words used outside the movies in tie-in materials.... I think a further distinction should be made between words that were around at the same time as the films vs. words that were invented later when the prequels came out. For example, in Return of the Jedi, we are never told in the movie what those small furry creatures on the forest moon are called, but publications outside the movie referred to them as "Ewoks," and since those publications are as old as the movie itself, nobody disputes that they are Ewoks.