xhonzi

Last summer, I was sitting on the couch with my laptop hanging my head as I watched the trailer for the theatrical Clone Wars cartoon.  My 5 year old son asked me what I was doing, so he jumped up on the couch with me. 

Him: "Wow!  Star Wars!  COooooollll!"

Me: "Yeah..."

Him: "Dad?"

Me: "Yeah?"

Him: "Who's that?" (pointing at Obiwan)

Me: "That's Obiwan Kenobi."  (Confused look on his face)

Him: Who's that? (pointing at Anakin)

Me: "That's Anakin Skywalker." (He gets even more confused.)

And then it dawns on me.

Me: I'VE DONE IT!  I'VE RAISED A SON WHO LOVES STAR WARS but HAS NO IDEA THAT THE PREQUELS EXIST!

And then I did a little jig in the family room.

2 weeks later, his idiot cousin invites him to go see the movie for his birthday party.  And his idiot cousin procedes to explain to him how much better the prequels are than the old movies.  I don't think my son fully believed him, but his innocence is gone.  :(

I refuse to believe the numbers are that high.  Gentlemen (and ladies) we have some work to do.

I'm more interested in the other numbers, though.  Let's shift my target group from OT fans to OT.com members.  Is that sounding more accurate?

My thought was simply that those of us who don't like the Prequels at all, probably are truly insatiable.  I guesses 80% of us would approve of the best version of the Prequels and that 60% is the highest approval you could get with a remake.  As much as I'd like to see a remake, I don't think it would be worth the time (fan's approval wise) no matter how perfect it could be.

That's all I was trying to say.

Here's my estimation

40% - The Prequel Trilogy's approval rating among OT fans.

80% - The highest approval rating the Prequels could have had among OT fans after leaving up to speculation for 16 years.

60% - The highest approval rating any attempt to "redo" the Prequels after 10ish years of "what they shoulda done"s.

What do you think?

And more than a single red lightsabre on screen at a time.  Who whould have thought that possible with modern special effects!

Are you suggesting he's more fake than Hayden's performance?

Thanks for the reply.  I've been racking my brain trying to come up with other sci-fi stories that include space battles (which is most of them) which are part of an actual "war" (which is fewer of them) wherein it is between forces more or less equal in number and tech (which is practically none of them).

I really dig the three layered battle at the end of RotJ.  The intercutting of the ground, space, and lightsabre battles really does it for me.  But it seems that the only way of getting the ground battle started was by sneaking a stolen imperial shuttle to the ground.  Those forces were secretly in place when the space battle started.

My friend was saying that large ships could jump into a system, deploy small landing craft (almost the equivalent of para-troopers) and then jump out before the defense systems/ships could respond-  That it wasn't necessary to win a space battle before taking to the planet... but I guess you'd want to win the space battle or else you'd be stuck on the surface.  :(

Another friend was telling me about the PC MMO called EVE.  That interstellar travel is accomplished through worm-holes and that the battlefronts are moved whenever control of the worm-holes changes hands.  That's interesting, but I guess it has me more convinced that the "unlimited" travel of Star Wars makes a "front in space" something of an impossibility.

Prequels?  What prequels?  I hope if they ever do make prequels, that they are as good as the trailer for Old Republic.  I could do with a little less ninjafu or twirling, however.

So, my first question is this:

Do all 4 layers occur simultaneously, or is the winning of one the gateway to entering the other?

For example:

Team A holds Planet X.  That is to say they are in control of the surface, the air and near orbit space.  Team B wants to take Planet X from Team A's control.  Must Team B win some sort of victory or create some kind of foothold in near orbit space before they can launch troops and arament to the surface?  Or do all three layers happen simultaneously?  Must Team B control strategic space near the planet before they can even begin the other?  What does a "front" look like in space based warfare?

I think there's a temptation in Science Fiction/Space Fantasy to transpose Earth based warfare one-to-one to space, and it doesn't seem to really work very well.

So, I've been thinking a little recently:

How would a "war" in space actually play out?  I would think it would have 4 "layers" if you will:

1. Planetside (ground troop, tanks, etc...)

2. Air/Lower Space (fighters dogfighting and providing support to the ground troops, Shuttles bringing ground troops to and from the battlefield)

3. Outerspace/Near Orbit (including capital ships launching the hardware/troops for the two other layers)

4. Strategic (Controlling whole planets, "shipping lanes", etc.  Everything else would be a battle, this would be the war.)

The Rebellion of the OT shows more "Guerilla" warfare than traditional warfare.  From what we can tell, the Imperials outclass the Rebels in technology and number.  (The Rebels making up for it with Pluckiness and the Power of Positive Thinking (and teddy bears!))  So their attacks are less of a full affront, but more with small strategic strikes being made from hidden bases.

What would a full on war with two more or less equal sides look like in space?

Sluggo,

As a duly ordanined Priest of the Church of the Mighty Gonk, I can receive your pennance through my Paypal account.  I think $50 should cover it?

You've got to be kidding me, are you all serious?  I can't believe the lack of comprehension and intelligence being displayed by OT members this week!

Do you think that that high pitched "Nooooo!" is coming from the Mighty Gonk?  Do you think that a simple machine with a hot iron could torture or even bring pain to the Mighty Gonk?  Do you think that His Allpowerfulness is ever in a situation he does not wish into existence?

Is the Mighty Gonk being tortured in this scene?  I say unto you, Nay!  But it is the Torture Droid who is being tortured.  TMG waits for the right moment and "strikes while the iron is hot" (if you will) releases a powerful droid altering nerve agent from His Mighty Feet causing the torture droid to call out in pain.

The Mighty Gonk can later be found detonating charges which destroy Jabba's sail barge just as Luke shoots at the deck.  And also destroying the second Death Star.

All hail the Mighty Gonk!

Davnes007 said:

It's a free alternative to DivX.

 Don't feed the troll.

<Snip Sluggo's Pics>

And those are just the one's with pictures! 

There's also a video called "State of the Art, the SPFX: The Empire Strikes Back" that is pretty good and one of the only ESB focused docos. Available where ever you find the rest of that stuff.

On a completely different note, does anyone have a high quality picture of the birds eye shot of the Sail Barge set (as seen in the interview in the first post of this thread)? I hadn't seen that picture before and I would like to use it as wallpaper for a bit. Thanks

Bingowings said:

<...>

You can see why the EU obsessed about clone technology in the early days because like superweapons they are an unavoidable consequence of being introduced as a technology of that universe.

Unfortunately unavoidable consequence often leads to very boring stories.

I haven't ever thought about it in those terms.  I'm going to let it soak in a little, but there the EU does have a little bit of a superweapon problem.  Outside of Thrawn and Dark Empire, I can't think of any EU stories that use/abuse cloning...  But then again I haven't kept up with EU since about '98 or so.

Still... could the prequels have used a superweapon?  Or was the clone army the superweapon of its day?

I was thinking... the other twist a lot of my friends were expecting was something to do with Palapatine's dual identity.  It was sort of built to be more of a reveal than, "Yep.  He really is the same guy.  Hood goes up.  Hood goes down.  Have you ever heard of Clark Kent?"

Cable-X1 said:

I think the PT made in the 80s would have rocked the hell out of us. One of the downfalls of the PT was that Lucas waiting too damn long. He shouldn't have let us catch a breath after Jedi. Maybe given it a year or two and then launched into it. That would have been much better.

So true about accepting the inferior ROTJ...I'll take the Ewoks over Jar Jar any day.

 It's true.  Without decades of "catching our breath" and "hearing all of the various plans and rumours as to how things would shake out" and "using our own imaginations which turned out to be better than George's" we would have all like the PT much better.  It probably would have been made better, but who can say?

The other factor is that there wouldn't have been as much extensive EU before the prequels either.  I know that Lucasfilm said the PT timeframe was off limits to the EU authors, but that didn't stop The Thrawn Trilogy, Dark Empire, Children of the Jedi, etc... from casting long shadows back on galactic history, especially in regards to the Jedi and the Clone Wars.  It still makes me wonder what some of their other ideas were for the Clone Wars.  Probably superior to the ones we got., or would have gotten in the late 80s.  So maybe it's not all bad that the PT didn't come out right away.

V_F_P,

1 quick question: In your new ending to RotJ with Luke and Vader fighting near a captive Leia... how exactly is she dressed?

C3PX,

Please elaborate more on the shocks and twists you thought you might see.  I was thinking along similar lines recently that there were no twists.

Maybe Luke had an older brother?

Maybe Vader wasn't actually the father?  Obi-wan?

I don't know.  But you're right, the Panda Bear Shuffle was not much of a twist.  I was expecting some intrigue in RotS about the whole Sifo Diyas thing.  I went to the theatre hopeful that the turn would be done well, that the space battles would be thrilling, and that I might actually like the movie.  It took me a couple days to get over my disappointment for those other things, but then I realized the "mystery" elements of AotC weren't revisited at all.  Oops?

70's hair Matt Damon was looking at me from the back of the Brothers Grimm DVD cover.  It struck me that he had a certain resemblance to 70's hair Mark Hamill or even early 80's hair Mark Hamill.

What would you think of him as Anakin?

And why doesn't Kasdan have some awesome filmography?  He seems to be very good at what he does, but outside of Empire, Jedi and Raiders...?  There are a lot of stinkers on there, and the list seems really short.

What gives?

CO said:

skyjedi2005 said:

I would not have done the prequels period.  i would have moved the story forward and show Luke After Return of the Jedi.  I would have done a sequel trilogy with at least Mark Hamill if not Ford and Fisher. 

Looking back now, I am glad Lucas didn't do 7,8,9.  Atleast with the PT, if we don't like it, we can erase it from the story, cause essentially it is about the rise of Anakin and the Empire in a nutshell.  You can enjoy 4,5,6 even today without the PT.

If Lucas made 7,8,9 and those movies sucked with Hammil, and possibly Ford and Fisher, that would have REALLY tarnished the OT.  Atleast now we can say that 4,5,6 are classics to us, and the PT is just a different story, whereas 7,8,9 would have been like Rocky V, where OUR heroes are in a crappy movie.

There is much truth to what you say.  Sometimes the promise of the unmade is way better than an actual made.  I love Twin Peaks and am extremely upset with where season 2 ended, but to be honest, I'm not sure an actual season 3 would have helped the show.  It gained cult status due to the missing 3rd season more than in spite of it.  I've really liked the 5 seasons of Lost, but it scares me to death that they are working on the 6th and final season.  They will probably screw it up.

I have Chris Gore's "The 50 Greatest Movies Never Made" on my shelf.  In the book, he reviews good, odd, bizzare, or whatever scripts/ideas that never got into production.  #3 on his list is: "Alien vs Predator."  It sure sounded like a good idea... but then someone went and made it.  :(

Also reminds me of the Donner cut of Superman 2.  As long as it was this unattainable cut, it was everything and anything fans wanted it to be.  Now that we've seen (most of) what was shot by Donner but not used by Lester, it's not quite the crown jewel it was made out to be.

Watchmen almost didn't get released due to legal shenanigans.  It would have been the best movie ever (or at least the best superhero movie ever), had it not come out.  It did come out, and at least for me it was very good but it didn't change my life.

I know I'm a bit late to this particular party, but here-a-goes:

I remember Last Crusade being the best of the Trilogy... but I haven't actually watched it in 15 years or so.  I did watch Raiders semi-recently, and perhaps my adult sensibilities are able to recognize this as the superior film.  A younger version of myself will agree that Raiders has a lot of downtime (the University, the explanation of the Ark, meeting Marion, a lot of sitting around in the desert) which said younger self found fairly dull...  The older and wiser me now finds these scenes to be much more interesting and to some degree the heart of the story.

I also wonder if a lot of my fondness for Last Crusade came from the video games.  I played both the Action Game and the Adventure Game that Lucasfilm Games released at the time (and the follow-up Fate of Atlantis!).  I knew the story of Last Crusade a lot better than the other 2 for the sake of playing through the games.

4 was terrible.  I wish it would have been more terrible, so it was more clearly in the wrong.  There are people who liked it.