xhonzi

Bit said:

XHONZI (still confused)
Is that you can say?

XHONZI (flustered)
What kind of answer is that???

Mielr said:

TV's Frink said:

Baltimore is in Boston, which is in Britain.

Remember, there are some impressionable youngsters here.

Baltimore is in the state of Maryland, kids. :-)

Carp, bkev... do you have to RUIN EVERYTHING???

R.ic, M.ini?

He's just saying that infinity Gauntlet pictures are a lot to post.  So far he's posted two.  Infinity - 2 = infinity.  So, still infinity to go! 

I started a thread here for inspirational art work around the net.  If you can post some stuff, you should.

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Prequel-Rewrite-Concept-Art/topic/11513/

A B C said:

"Secret Wars" was nothing more than a mash of super heroes ! (imo)

As opposed to what?  The Avengers is just a mash of super heroes, Justice League is just a mash of super heroes, COIE is just a mash of super heroes, Watchmen is just a mash of super heroes...

The Marvel and DC Universes are just a mash of super heroes.

Right?

Or is there something else you're trying to say?

There's probably a good reason I can't see that picture at work.

The Marvel Heroes Secret Wars are usually cited as "Marvel's Crisis on Infinite Earths" despite the fact that that the Marvel series ran from May 1984 to April 1985 and COIE ran from April 1985 to March 1986.  I'm not sure why DC is given so much credit when Marvel did theirs a full year earlier.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CrisisCrossover

However, it's true that Marvel and DC sort of fed off of each other's successes.  Infinity Gauntlet (Series) might not have been greenlit or pushed as hard without the success of COIE.  But COIE might not have blah blah blah without Marvel Heroes Secret Wars.

NOOOO!  YOU'RE WASTING IT!  WE COULD BE TALKING ABOUT ANYTHING WE WANT!

I'm a MacGregor man myself.

*Whoops!*

There goes my secret.

Wait, so Frink won't derail this thread?  Holy carp, do the rest of you realize how valuable this is?!?!?

I always assumed that Luke's parents were married, giving him a nice Christian/non-bastard birth just like me.

If, instead, Anakin is on some backwater planet in the middle of the Clone Wars and he impregnates some local girl... he wouldn't necessarily know that he had a kid.

And, by that token, does Leia have to be his twin?  Could she be the daughter of another woman?

How would you react to this if it was in the prequels?  Does it change Luke's character much?

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/EU-Fantasy-Casting/topic/11356/

By all means, continue in this thread, but I thought you would enjoy this other thread as well.

from this site as well as others

Ooo, do tell.

Leslie Judge said:

I was thinking about the Vader killing Anakin issue.

If I'm correct then in the OT nobody evers says that a Jedi can't teach more than one padawan, so Obiwan could have had a group of students. He even says '...who was a pupil of mine...'

Yeah, no one ever says "padawan" in the OT, so I think we're safe on this one.

If Vader's name comes up earlier so we know that a Darth Vader exists somewhere and he is a former Jedi who turned to the dark side, then Anakin could be sent after him alone or with a few other Jedi to capture/defeat Vader.

If we see Anakin go on a mission at some point in the movie and later Vader comes back telling Obiwan that Anakin is no more then only Obiwan knows what he really means and who he really is (if he can sense his true identity), we don't.

During their conversation/fight Vader could refer Obiwan as his former master, so Obi wouldn't sound such a liar in EP IV.

Of course this means that Anakin should have turned to the dark side earlier and that he is good enough with the Force to hide this little fact from the other Jedi.

This is what Blackhawk meant when he referred to the Dread Pirate Roberts phase of this discussion several pages back.  I, for one, am not opposed to the idea.  I think it could really work if done well... but I fear it being a total train wreck.

WheresBlackhawk said:

Here are my new questions for the week:

How should Jedi combat work?
I think this needs to be reinvented.  As anyone who has read this thread knows, I HATE the idea of bada$$ Jedi.  To me that goes against EVERYTHING from the OT (Ugh, Samuel L. Jackson? Obiwan swinging his sword like Conan?).

Yes, I think Luke's giant backflips and Vader's ESB prowess should be more or less the extent of Jedi Agility.  All of the twirling in the PT is just way too over the top.  And I like RedLetterMedia's assessment of the vertical traffic scene in AotC... once they fall 20 stories and comfortably land in a speeder giving chase at 100 MPH, who fears for their safety?  Who feels any tension as they face "danger"?

So, if the force should only be used for knowledge and defense, then how DOES one succeed in battle?  I really don't even like the "force push." If I walk up to you and "push" you across the room, to me, that speaks to "aggression," one of those naughty words Yoda spoke of.  So we need to come up with something new, like the Jedi equivalent of judo.  Jedi Judo? I'm so sorry, but PLEASE bear with me.  How can the force weilder use the aggression, anger, and attack of the enemy to their advantage? That's what I'm looking for. Any ideas would be appreciated.

Here in lies the problem of the light side of the force.  In my mind, this should be used to push people to the Dark Side.  Because this logic essentially makes the Light Side of the Force usless.  It's a gun that shoots no bullets.

Jedi carry lightsabres, but if they ever do anything with them, they are essentially forcing their will on someone who doesn't share their physical might.  The old, "Might makes right" argument.  Yoda argues that the Light Side of the Force is passive... but Jedi Warriors have to be anything but passive if they're going to be anything buy ineffective.  QED. 

All the Dark Jedi have to do to win the Light Jedi to their side is to draw them into battle.  Once at battle, the Jedi are on morally shaky ground.

next...
"If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can POSSIBLY imagine."  How does Ben know this? How does he become "more powerful" in EP5and6?  Is it because he is now PART of the force?  Wouldn't it be cool, if the reason he defeats Vader in EP3 is because of a moment of pure power fed by the Jedi Vader himself helped destroy? Maybe the force was "strong" in Luke during the Death Star battle because Ben was WITH him at that moment. Of course this raises the question, why did Ben abandon Luke when he confronted Vader in Bespin.  Why did Luke HAVE TO do it alone?

I think its much simpler than that.  He became a matyr.  Matyrs are often much more useful to their causes dead than they were alive.

Prior to this, Luke says, "It's not like I like the Empire- I hate it.  But with the harvest coming in... you know, I've got stuff to do."  Obviously, he's come a long away and killed a stormtrooper or two before Ben dies, but I think that moment cements everyone on the Millennium Falcon as a rebel. 

Again any ideas to help connect the dots would be great.

Remember: if we want to make something cool for the NPT, it must not only fill in the blanks and the past of the OT, but it must also make us look at the OT in a new light.  THEN i think it would be a successful story.

I agree with this, but very cautiously.  The PT did make me look at the OT in a new light, but not a better one.

WheresBlackhawk said:

Where does the name "Ben" Kenobi come from?

 2 answers:

1. Moviemaking reason: Obi-Wan is a mouthful and sounds sort of "stilted" and unnatural.  It also sounds 'cool' but in line with the "simple and used" universe that the OT presents, it's too high falutin'.  'Ben' brings it down to Earth, and connects with the audience better.  Who's never known an old coot named Ben?

2. In universe- for similar reasons, people with long names get nick names from people that talk to them all of the time.  Fortunately, no one called Obi-Wan "Obi" or "Wannie" in the movie, and "Ben" seems to share some sort of connection to the name, despite the fact that it's really hard to describe.  Also, in the 70's, it was more logical that if you changed your first name and moved out of town that no one would ever find you.  It's sort of the same excuse for why Luke can go by his father's surname Skywalker and not be found by an Imperial Google search.  Now, we're much more skeptical of those things, but still.  Crazy ol' "Ben" Kenobi living out in the desert is probably not the same as Jedi Knight "Obi-Wan" Kenobi, fugitive of the Empire.  Ben hasn't heard the name "Obi-Wan" in a long time, because no one has known what his real name was in that same time.  No one linked him back to his past.

That or maybe all Jedi were called Obi-Wan like all Sith were called Darth, I don't know!

I humbly link to my thread post about trying to come up with a "Ben" like nick name for Anakin: http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Nick-name-for-little-orphan-Ani/topic/11331/

Character development is more than whether one is evil or not.  (or looking 'stoopid')

 Its contamination from the prequels thats clouded your judgement!

No it's not!  AND YOU'RE BEGINNING TO SOUND LIKE A SEPARATIST!

RE: Darth Vader- not enough screen time to be major character

Luke, Han, Leia and even Yoda, Chewbacca and R2-D2 (probably even Lobot) get more screen time than Vader, so it's true- and I think I already said this... going by the standard definition, he's clearly not the main character of the film.  However, I think if you look at who is driving the plot, and whose problem is "the problem" of the film, I think you have to conclude it is Vader.  Vader is not the protagonist of the film, but he is the protagonist of the problem which is at the center of the 3 acts upon which the film is hung.

Which should come as no surprise, really.  It's very common for the Antagonist to rule over Act 2.  So again returning to the Macro Acts for the trilogy, we see that Vader rules over all of ESB, and that he is the Protagonist of the problem, even if we don't see the story from his perspective.

It can be a little like arguing that since Sherlock Holmes stories are told from the perspective of John Watson, and that he indeed is in more of the book than Holmes... that Watson has somehow become the main character of the book.

Watson is the perspective character.  Holmes is the main character.

Baltimore is in Boston, right?  ;)

captainsolo:

Star Wars has always been Dolby-it has never been DTS (except for rare screenings of the 97 SE). There's no reason to change it now.

There's DTS and then there's DTS, same as there's Dolby, and then there's Dolby.

What I mean is, there isn't a strong analogue between DTS vs Dolby in theatres and DTS vs Dolby at home.  If something was Dolby in theatres, and Dolby Digital HD at home, that doesn't mean it's a more pristine transfer than if it was Dolby in theatres and DTS-HD at home.

doubleofive said:

I'm not a fan of this DTS thing, mostly because my receiver won't read it. But my cheap Walmart receiver can play any kind of Dolby. It's sad, if I want to watch Star Trek TOS, the new mix I have to switch to my Aux Stereo In (my BR player can output DTS in analog stereo), but if I want to listen to the original mono, I get it lossless straight through my coax input.

Of course, it could be that I just need to buy a new receiver...

Every DVD player and receiver sold in the last 10 years should support ALL DVD BASED Dolby and DTS codecs.  On Blu-Ray, however, you also get DolbyHD and DTS-HD codecs thrown into the mix.  Most if not all players can stream the data to the receiver, but it's been a mixed bag on what receivers can decode what codecs.

005, is your receiver old enough that it doesn't even support DVD based DTS?  And it seems that DTS on DVD died a silent death sometime before HDDVD came out.  I think the LotR EE discs were some of the last I bought that had DTS on them.

Case in point: Pirates otC 1 is in DTS 6.1 as well as DD5.1.  PotC 2 & 3 are just in DD5.1.

I do prefer DTS for DVDs, not because it's louder, but I do feel that the Signal to Noise Ratio is better.  But because it's usually designed with a nice home theatre set-up in mind.  The DD5.1 tracks have to be able to downmix cleanly to 2.0 stereo because sadly that is still how 90% of DVDs are listened to.  The DTS tracks usually don't compromise due to the fact that they aren't the "primary" track on the disc.  Also, it supports a discreet 6.1 track, unlike Dolby Digital on DVD.

I don't have a new-enough receiver to process either of the "HD" codecs, so I can't comment on them.  However, if they both sound as good or better than DTS6.1 generally does, I'm sure I can't be bothered to tell the difference between them.  My ears aren't that good. 

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

When people posted comments about my Puggo Grande, saying it was great to see SW in its original form, I always was quick to say NO, it's true original form was not a scratchy old print with faded colors. It's original form was a pristine beautiful big screen experience with vibrant realistic colors and glorious sound. This thread is making me very happy, knowing that it is still possible.  I wish I too could have been in Britain for this screening, to see SW in its original form again for the first time in over 30 years.

 It was in Boston.

miker71 said:

Mielr said:

I don't understand why they didn't auction off the pieces rather than trashing them. Certainly they must have known that people would've been interested.

I don't think most 12 year olds had the money, and if IIRC adults appreciated the movies but were more into - whatever adults did in the late seventies and early eighties.

Are you saying adults then didn't do what we are doing now?  Posting all day on Star Wars forums?

I think you're saying the same thing: Sony has to make another movie so they don't lose their option on the rights. 

And, since they are rushed for time with all of the main crew bailing on them, they are basically just dusting off the Batman Begins script and making that.

RE: The rest of you yahoos... take your Newt pictures and shove them up your frinks.