imperialscum

Wolfman said:

Best you stay over on TFN where you can all have a group hug about it.

I am sorry but you don't seem to understand the mind of an average prequel boy. They get very little satisfaction from agreeing among themselves on "how great the prequels are". Their mind is ravaged by the fact that a lot of people hold a bad opinion of the prequels. The most satisfaction they get from attacking those people.

I think JK2 and JKA had good enemies. A combination imperial remnant and some dark side force users.

What I like about JK2 and JKA is that those enemies did not take half of the galaxy, but it was just a crisis of some sort. I just don't want any galaxy-scale war at the timeline selected for the films. But I am afraid I will be disappointed.

And no clone armies or any kind of cloning please. Preferably no dorid armies either.

darklordoftech said:

The TOR Sith, their Emperor, and their Empire. They undermine the movies, TOTJ, and even KOTOR.

 In what way?

The question is for Sith and Empire, not for the Emperor btw.

Tyrphanax said:

Now, if you want to ignore the PT, it makes less sense, of course, outside of Obi-Wan wanting to train Luke earlier, and Owen disallowing contact out of fear for Luke's safety while Obi-Wan waited for the Force (or whatever) to bring them together at the right time.

The point I am making is why would he take him to his uncle and raise him himself. But as I said, this is not the problem within the scope of the first film.

Well everyone has a right to an opinion of some thing, whether it is good or bad. I have never understood the urge of prequel boys to attack those of us who have a bad opinion of the prequel trilogy.

As for PT Anakin turning to the dark side... I don't find it moving and I don't think it is a tragedy. A tragedy would be if a good person turned to the dark side. But Anakin as written and portrayed in PT (AOTC and ROTS) is an annoying, ungrateful, selfish, arrogant, hypocritical, short-tempered moron. If anything, trasformation into Vader (as written and portrayed in OT) is a big change for the better.

Anchorhead said:

imperialscum said:

I am sorry but that doesn't make sense. I don't see why would leaving something to chance be better than controlling it. Jedi trained from the early age for thousands of years and yet they manged to be more than decent people (at least that's what they show us). In fact, by just letting him deal with it by himself would increase the chance of him becoming arrogant and misuse his powers. Far more than by carefully raising him in a good spirit (to be selfless, humble etc.) and to teach him to use his powers for good purposes.

On the other hand, practically speaking, Ben and Yoda pretty much saw him as a tool to defeat the Emperor. I just don't see the reason why they chose to throw him in with a few months of training instead of an entire life of training.

None of it makes sense, nor will it ever.  You're putting ten times more thought into the story than Lucas did.  He isn't a good writer, he made up characters to sell toys, and thought up (and altered) the story on the fly. 

You won't be able to make this work because it doesn't.  The story was altered long after the earlier parts were written & filmed - by a very poor writer.  No way you solve this Rubik's Cube.

The story is contaminated. 

Well you are partially right, but we have to admit that this thing (along with many others) became a plot hole only after the rest of the episodes were released. If you look at the first film alone, it isn't a problem any more. So maybe I somehow understand why you only like the first film and not the rest.

Gillespies Jacketeer said:

imperialscum said:

The whole back story is dumb. If Obi-Wan had any serious plans with Luke, he would have raised him himself and, more importantly, started his training at the very early age.

I have two explanations for this thing. One is simply being a plot hole. The other is that Obi-Wan and Yoda knew that Luke could never defeat the Emperor and therefore they planned to use Luke just to trigger Anakin's return who would then destroy the Emperor (which is what eventually happened in ROTJ).

 It kinda makes sense. Maybe he wanted to avoid him becoming arrogant because his powers manifest to early. If he was just a regular dude who discovered the Force all of the sudden he would have more appreciation for it.

Instead of growing up an knowing that he was special from the beginning.

I am sorry but that doesn't make sense. I don't see why would leaving something to chance be better than controlling it. Jedi trained from the early age for thousands of years and yet they manged to be more than decent people (at least that's what they show us). In fact, by just letting him deal with it by himself would increase the chance of him becoming arrogant and misuse his powers. Far more than by carefully raising him in a good spirit (to be selfless, humble etc.) and to teach him to use his powers for good purposes.

On the other hand, practically speaking, Ben and Yoda pretty much saw him as a tool to defeat the Emperor. I just don't see the reason why they chose to throw him in with a few months of training instead of an entire life of training.

SilverWook said:

imperialscum said:

The whole back story is dumb. If Obi-Wan had any serious plans with Luke, he would have raised him himself and, more importantly, started his training at the very early age.

I have two explanations for this thing. One is simply being a plot hole. The other is that Obi-Wan and Yoda knew that Luke could never defeat the Emperor and therefore they planned to use Luke just to trigger Anakin's return who would then destroy the Emperor (which is what eventually happened in ROTJ).

 Early on, with the Empire hunting down Jedi, the moisture farm might have been the safest place for Luke. There is dialog about wanting to have given him the lightsaber sooner, but Owen forbade it.

Luke knew where Ben lived, and what he looked like, so they must have met before if only in passing.

Arguably, Obi Wan was waiting for a sign, and it came in the form of a message carried by an Artoo unit he pretends not to recognize. ;)

Well a house in the middle of dune sea is even safer place, if Obi-Wan took him there and train him (without Owen even knowing about it).

The whole back story is dumb. If Obi-Wan had any serious plans with Luke, he would have raised him himself and, more importantly, started his training at the very early age.

I have two explanations for this thing. One is simply being a plot hole. The other is that Obi-Wan and Yoda knew that Luke could never defeat the Emperor and therefore they planned to use Luke just to trigger Anakin's return who would then destroy the Emperor (which is what eventually happened in ROTJ).

RicOlie_2 said:

Yeah, Leia even says "There's no time for sorrows Commander", which seems like a bit of an underreaction to the fact that she lost her parents, her friends, her planet, her dog, etc. forever in a quick second. It's not as if her house burned down, she lost just about everything for goodness sake!

Once something is done that cannot be undone then grief, crying and losing sleep is not only completely redundant but extremely counter-productive. Most of people cannot avoid that. But someone with an iron character and high intelligence should be able to skip that unnecessary stuff. And Liea seems like a person who could do that.

darklordoftech said:

imperialscum said:

darklordoftech, I became extremely curious as to why you dislike Sith, red lightsbares and such?

Because they cheapen a lot of the characters and often feel out-of-place. Palaptine shouldn't be the product of an ancient lineage and the idea of two immortal factions who keep on going through the same motions over and over and yet continuing to believe it won't happen again makes no sense. As for red lightsabers, there's a lack of consistency as to when the Sith started using them. Some places imply that Palpatine started it while others have the Sith using red lightsabers thousands of years earlier.

I think Palpatine being Sith is good. And I like Sith, especially how they are portrayed in KOTR1 (KOTOR2 not) and especially in SWTOR. I really enjoyed SWTOR. It was the first Star Wars game that I could properly play Sith and and imperial. The only thing I hate is the immortal Emperor guy.

Humby said:
In the years since, I have trouble sitting all the way through any of the prequels.  TPM is probably my favorite, because I think it best captured some of the original spirit and fun of Star Wars.  Sure, it has a pretty bad child actor, an annoying cartoon rabbit, and seems to be packed full of plot holes and poor writing, but it none the less had a sense of discovery, and fun moments.

I too enjoy TMP the most of the there. The reason is very simple. The older Anakin in ATOC and RTOS is just unbearable. Yes the young Anakin is annoying (due to bad acting mostly), but at least he is written as a nice character (helpful, selfless etc.). TPM is essentially still an adventure. On the other hand, Anakin in ATOC and RTOS is specifically written to be a disgusting character (selfish, ungrateful, hypocritical, short-tempered, whiny, stupid etc.). I just can't enjoy a film with that kind of main character. It is not an adventure any more but a bad soap opera centred around this troubled character.

darklordoftech, I became extremely curious as to why you dislike Sith, red lightsbares and such?

To be honest I don't think anything could be done better in a sense that I really like it the way it is.

darklordoftech said:

Did Lucas intend the Jedi to be so stupid in the prequels or is Lucas himself actually as stupid as they are?

 The prequels are a shrine of stupidity.

Tack said:

The biggest problem is that, as is, the films are about a bad egg who needed that last push to get to the side of evil, not a noble soul seduced by evil.

 I am of the same opinion. For more information read my signature.

Bingowings said:

imperialscum said:

skyjedi2005 said:

I wish the sequel trilogy  was built upon the original canon.  I mean the original 3 films from 1977, 1980 and 1983.

Not the 1997 version, not the 2004 version or the 2011 version.

I don't see any major canon-wise difference between theatrical and 1997...

One example... in 1977 Han is a human being with a spinal cord connecting to his skull.

In 1997 he is a elasticated mutant with the ability to dodge laser bolts fired at point blank range.

Not that I defend the change... but Han's head motion in 1997 was rather minimal and well within human body limits. In fact, observing the actual shot, Greedo would miss even if Han didn't move the head at all. So your example is quite worthless.

buddy-x-wing said:

I really wished that the public face of Palpatine in the films was the disguise and the ravaged face of the Emperor was his true self, rather than the reuslt of being scarred by his own force lightning in ROTJ 

 It should be simply a result of aging and dark side "side-effect".

Krakatoa said:

Something about the Inquisitor picture just makes me angry...

Well the new "Inquisitor" character looks lame and is lame story-wise. I will avoid anger by not watching the series.

skyjedi2005 said:

I wish the sequel trilogy  was built upon the original canon.  I mean the original 3 films from 1977, 1980 and 1983.

Not the 1997 version, not the 2004 version or the 2011 version.

I don't see any major canon-wise difference between theatrical and 1997...

I think Emperor in ROTJ is one of the best written and portrayed character in the series.

In ROTS McDiarmid over-exaggerated with the performance. But it might not be his fault. he might have been instructed by Lucas to act like that.

As for ESB, the guy looks like some boring grandpa. The actor even read the line like one. Still I prefer the old version to the one in 2004 SE simply because they made McDiarmid have the ROTS Palpatine make-up instead of ROTJ one (the two are actually very different). And I don't like prequel parasites in OT.

I decided not to watch it. Some people would say there is no harm in watching something. I think otherwise. Things like that pollute your memory and stick in your head for life. Also these memories will then surface everytime you watch OT. It is the same with PT. After I watched it, the brain now automatically connects the characters and storylines. This in a sense polluted my OT experience forever.

Well Star Wars has a range of elements almost no other films has. Anyway Matrix is out of its league/scale so it unreasonable to compare it to Star Wars. A proper opposite number could maybe be Lord of the Rings. But I have never particularly liked it because its setting was completely unappealing to me (i.e. medieval-like, swords, bows, horses, wizards and such). Star Wars, on the other hand, has a perfect setting for me. Everything is basically like we know now, only that it is projected through a fairytale into a galaxy far far away. As I kid  I use to like reading and watching WW2 stuff (battles, warships, aircraft carriers, fighters, bombers, military chain of command etc.). Original trilogy had a lot of that, only in space.

TV's Frink said:

Just because you put a question mark at the end of a statement, it doesn't turn the statement into a question.  Your "question" about who watches what more was not a question at all, it was a theory to advance your (misguided) point.

Read the last paragraph of this post.

TV's Frink said:

imperialscum said:

TV's Frink said:

Liar?

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/A-New-Hope-was-released-at-just-the-right-time/post/677343/#TopicPost677343

As for the rest, you can call it slight exaggeration, but the essential point stands.  I forget if English is your first language but you need a refresher either way.

This proves exactly what I said. I did not even mention Matrix until you highlighted it. In that post I was replying in general to the films Anchorhead mentioned AND all similar that he did not specifically mention. Then you highlighted Matrix and made it "the key one". Not me.

 Oh, so you take back everything you said about the Matrix then.  Cool.

You mean everything you accused me of saying that I did not actually say?