imperialscum

Harmy said:

I really hope there won't be any old characters coming back as force ghosts. That was one of the things I really liked about Zahn's books - he recognized the stupidity of the scene in ROTJ, where Obi-Wan, instead of being a disembodied voice or a flickering apparition, appeared as a ghost to rest his but on a stone and have a whole expository conversation with Luke and so Zahn had Obi-Wan appear to Luke one last time telling Luke that he's moving on and Luke will have to deal with what's coming on his own.

It really cheapens the death of a character, when you  can just bring them back whenever it's convenient - it kinda worked in ESB, because it was handled pretty tastefully but I think that on the whole, it's a pretty cheap plot device and it would be even worse to use it just to give the dead characters some kind of a cameo. Plus, imagine the horror if they brought Hayden back as Anakin's ghost... Urgh!

Well I just don't see how it worked in ESB and not in ROTJ. I think it worked well overall.

It was only ruined by the Hayden, which is by far the worst change to OT.

Ryan McAvoy said:

These things look pretty cool... (I would lose the red though IMO)

I agree. I play SWTOR myself and it has some very nice designs. The imperial cruisers look cool too.

SilverWook said:

I'm betting that we see star destroyers with Alliance or New Republic markings on them.

That would be logical and would make complete sense (like death star II). I rather see them stick to the lore and make things logical than trying to do some new stuff just for the sake of making the whole thing more "original".

Ryan McAvoy said:

As a writer of film scores Williams is overrated IMO. Brilliant, but overated. Ennio Morricone and Bernard Hermann are the greatest ever composers of film scores. Every score they did featured a whole new soundscape of different instruments and emotional depths.

That is your opinion.

At least we know the music will be good.

I doubt all drafts are publicly available. For example, 2nd draft of ESB was intentionally not sent to WGA to ensure LB got the credit. I have seen some stuff floating around the internet but I wouldn't trust something to be genuine unless it is the actual scan of the document.

TV's Frink said:

Awesome. :P

Speaking of surprise, we were up for a big surprise in 1999.

Well Disney will sure make it as good as possible. But that "good" is defined by today's mainstream expectations (which does not reflect mine).

I could be wrong. Maybe the films will be good after all.

timdiggerm said:

Ronster said:

a money spinner

Ooh unlike the other six okay

 

Well the difference is that in OT Lucas still had to make something good in order to get the money/status.

After OT, Star Wars gained such a cult position that no matter what kind of crap you make, as long as you attach "Star Wars" to it, it will make tons of money (prequels for example). Same will apply for the new trilogy. So I think concerns can be valid.

SilverWook said:

imperialscum said:

SilverWook said:

Having to explain to the audience why Chewie's not around would be awkward and sound forced

I don't know the details of Cheewie's death (I don't even know in which novel they made it) and I don't really care about it. But I have to disagree with what you said. Something like that really doesn't need detailed explaining. All it needs is a scene where Han or someone else mentions it.

For example in ROTS, the kidnapping of the Palpatine was a major plot point that was never directly explained in the film and yet it worked okay. The kidnapping was shown in the less known Clone Wars cartoons.

We saw the end result of the kidnapping though. Chewie deserves more than a throwaway line that he died years ago.

Well I understand your opinion but I think that in case they want him dead, it should be in a way that the death doesn't happen in the new films. Much more subtle and less distracting to the current storyline.

SilverWook said:

Having to explain to the audience why Chewie's not around would be awkward and sound forced

I don't know the details of Cheewie's death (I don't even know in which novel they made it) and I don't really care about it. But I have to disagree with what you said. Something like that really doesn't need detailed explaining. All it needs is a scene where Han or someone else mentions it.

For example in ROTS, the kidnapping of the Palpatine was a major plot point that was never directly explained in the film and yet it worked okay. The kidnapping was shown in the less known Clone Wars cartoons.

Warbler is ignoring me.

I am not ignoring anyone. No one in my entire internet career has managed to be good enough to get on my ignore list.

TV's Frink said:

I can't decide what to do with this thread.

I suggest donating it to charity.

ray_afraid said:

Wolfman said:

Reading the new Star Wars Insider it reports that Colin Higgins, the original 'Wedge' has died.

Reading some online blogs about Colin, it appears that fans called him 'fake Wedge'

I've never understood why he's been labeled "fake wedge". I know he was actually supposed to be wedge before he was let go, but since nobody calls him that in the film, why isn't he just seen as another pilot? I'm gonna start calling him "Thomas" cause he's full of doubt. (See mom, I did pay attention in Sunday school!)

Exactly. Why the hell would this guy have to be Wedge? Forget the behind-the-scenes stuff. From film storyline perspective, he is just some other guy.

Ryan McAvoy said:

imperialscum said:

Erikstormtrooper said:

I'm gonna go against the grain here and say the overall stories of the prequels weren't that bad. Lucas's general ideas were good as first drafts, but he just needed some "no men" to come in and fine-tune things.

I just don't see how is making the main character one of the most annoying and repulsive characters in film history a good idea. No matter what you build on that idea, it won't make it good.

Yes but it's the fine detail of the dialogue that makes him annoying, not the concept. There is nothing inherently annoying about Anakin racing pods. It's just he should have been a dashing young (Late teen?) Ayrton Senna type podracer, instead of a 9 year old doofus.

It is not the Ep1 Anakin I was particularly targeting with my argument. I was mainly talking about him in Ep2 and Ep3 where he constantly complains, he is ungrateful, he is a hypocrite (says "You're the closest thing I have to a father" to Obi-Wan's face and then a few moments later he talks shit about him behind his back) and he whines all the time (I mean he even whines in love scenes which is just unbelievable). If these kind of scenes are written, there are no dialogue corrections that will make them good.

Erikstormtrooper said:

I'm gonna go against the grain here and say the overall stories of the prequels weren't that bad. Lucas's general ideas were good as first drafts, but he just needed some "no men" to come in and fine-tune things.

I just don't see how is making the main character one of the most annoying and repulsive characters in film history a good idea. No matter what you build on that idea, it won't make it good.

Hey, it's me. said:

5. Clones as Enemies of the Republic from the start. Also, they're clones of extinct evil alien races thought to have been long gone. Not Boba fetts dad (Boba doesn't appear at all) 

6. The army of the republic being human conscripts.

Oh and yes, I get a headache when I see clone troopers. I think clone troopers are boring and stupid concept. I just wouldn't want any kind of clone armies. Clone Wars should only get the name after some incident involving cloning.

If you ask me, Anakin should be a similar character to Han Solo in OT (cool, likeable, funny, confident, sarcastic). He shouldn't have any stupid love/family problems and absolutely no short temper, whining, complaining, jealousy and so on. His fall should be simply because of his long involvement into the war. Perhaps he should have been the type of person who would prefer effectiveness and winning to moral/ethical decisions. Similar to Raven's fall in KOTOR.

Ryan McAvoy said:

Hey, it's me. said:

I, for one, will never own any version of 'that' trilogy so long as I draw breath. They're an absolute train wreck. No amount of editing can redeem it. None. ;)

Interested to know. What is the single worst thing (Or things) for you about the PT?

Read my signature.

Bingowings said:

If we are capable of turning the greed for food and mates into a greed for lumps of metal and rocks we can also turn it into greed for compassion and progress.

A noble thought but realistically I just do not see how you would make a human see profit in compassion. Even if you could accomplish that on a group of humans it would just make them more exploitable by other humans. So unless you did it on the entire mankind it would be a failure.

Bingowings said:

imperialscum said:

Bingowings said:

I'm fortunate not to want my Country to be global scale.

You did not quite understand where I was aiming at. What I was trying to say is that now you are (we all here are btw) in the top 5% of world's population that exploits the rest of the 95%. If you will move down the global scale as a result of bad local economic policies, such as excessive local social policies, (or if others will push you down) you won't be able to enjoy the "nice" socialism. If you move into the 95%, the only socialism you can have in a poor country is the one makes everyone equally poor.

If you are trying to say to enjoy the benefits of socialism one must first go through a period of capitalism. I would agree with you but so did Karl Marx.

I met him you know?

I told him to introduce the cigar and the funny walk into his act but he didn't go for it like Sigmund.

What I was trying to say is that the global economy always have and probably always will function according to basic natural laws (which is capitalism in other words). It is either your country will play by those rules, be successfully at it and be in the rich 5%; or fail at it and end up in the poor 95% who are exploited by the 5%. It is naive to think that everyone could have a couple of cars, a couple of mobile phones, a couple of computer. If people in 5% of the countries can have all that then it means the people in the other 95% must work for that.

Unfortunately, the human, however sophisticated, is in its core still an animal. We still have and operate by natural instincts of self-improvement and such. The capitalism targets those instincts that is why it works so "well", while socialism goes against them. If you will enforce too excessive socialism in one country you might risk people instinctively asking themselves "why do I work my ass off when everyone gets the same" and work less and less, which will gradually diminish the country's global economical power. And that will lead it into those 95%.

Note that I personally think that what I described above is unfair and bad. But that is how it is. It is a jungle on a different level. I am just being realist.

Bingowings said:

I'm fortunate not to want my Country to be global scale.

You did not quite understand where I was aiming at. What I was trying to say is that now you are (we all here are btw) in the top 5% of world's population that exploits the rest of the 95%. If you will move down the global scale as a result of bad local economic policies, such as excessive local social policies, (or if others will push you down) you won't be able to enjoy the "nice" socialism. If you move into the 95%, the only socialism you can have in a poor country is the one makes everyone equally poor.

Bingowings said:

What the UK needs is a Socialist government for a few years to allocate wealth to do things that need doing (like building cheap houses), providing employment and making the hyper rich a little less rich for a short period.

Socialism is a tricky thing. It is certainly a luxury of the rich countries. Your country first need to globally successful at capitalism (exploiting other countries) in order to have a good socialism within its borders (for example Scandinavian countries). If a non-rich country tries to have a socialism it will be just making everyone equally poor. But even a rich country must be aware to what extend it goes with socialism because if you go too far you will make the "successful" people unhappy and that will gradually lead to degradation of your country on a global scale. And when that happens you will not be able to have the luxury of socialism any more.

Well although it might sounded like that, my intention was not to generalise. I am aware that not all liberals are like that but a lot of them are. As someone mentioned, sometimes it is just because of their greed (getting the votes etc.).