uPtoWnNY said:

crazydoctor said:

ok. while we're on Star Wars... the biggest idiocy ever... Greedo shooting first... this is the biggest piece of ridiculousness I've ever seen on screen. Why did Lucas do this?

I mean let's forget what it does to the characters or story... it just looks plain ridiculous, it's something you'd see in someone shooting a home movie or something. it's like the 3 stooges or something with greedo missing at point blank range.

Hayden Christensen at the end of ROTJ was dumb too. Lucas is truly a mad genius.

yeah, I don't know what Lucas was thinking. I remember once someone compared Lucas and Prince... saying they both surrounded themselves with yes men, nobody daring to tell them when they thought something was wrong...

Why does Obi Wan repeatedly call Darth Vader "Darth" during their duel as if that´s his first name rather than a Sith title? Would´ve made more sense to call him "Vader" instead.

JoeTyler said:

Dauphin said:

Can we all agree that Obi Wan Kenobi was possibly the worst jedi of all time?

lol

That must be Qui-Gon Jinn

Yes, Greedo shooting first is a travesty. (in regards to a earlier post)

And Qui-Gon Jinn's problem was that he put so much faith into the spirituality of the Jedi way. And he was Obi Wan's master, so Obi Wan took Qui-Gon's aura of failure and amplified it!

They were both on equal footing until Obi Wan says "you know, I say things that might not be 100% true every now and then. You being the last possible Jedi and all, I like to keep you confused."

Also, Obi Wan tells Yoda "that boy is our last hope" and Yoda says "no... there is another." OBI WAN DELIVERED LEIA!! He should have known this!!! LOL

uPtoWnNY said:

KoolEaze said:

There´s this novel called A Splinter In The Mind´s Eye, and as far as I remember it was written as a potential sequel, albeit with a much lower budget in case Star Wars didn´t bring in any profit.

'Splinter' takes place between ANH & ESB.

Yes, that´s true, but that wasn´t the first intention for it.

From Wikipedia:

Behind the scenes

Splinter of the Mind's Eye was the first-ever Expanded Universe novel to be written and published. According to an interview with its author, Alan Dean Foster, in Empire magazine, the novel had been written to be filmed as a low budget sequel as a fallback plan in case Star Wars hadn't been a huge success. This accounts for why the book takes place almost entirely on a fog-shrouded planet. Additionally, Harrison Ford was not signed for the sequel as of the writing of the book, which is why Han Solo does not appear in it. Although George Lucas is credited as the author of Star Wars: From the Adventures of Luke Skywalker, the novelization of Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, was in fact written by Alan Dean Foster. Foster's early involvement in the Star Wars universe gave him the opportunity to write this book. Though Foster was granted a great amount of leniency in developing the story, one requirement was that a lot of props from Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope could be reused when filming the new film. According to Foster, Lucas' only request upon inspecting the manuscript was the removal of a dogfight in space undertaken by Luke and Leia before they crash-land on Mimban. Presumably, this sequence would have cost too much money to create.

At the time it was written, the familial relationship between Luke, Leia, and Darth Vader had yet to be revealed. Therefore, some inconsistencies are evident and unavoidable. Most noticeably the sexual tension depicted between Luke and Leia in this book, which in retrospect would be considered inappropriate in most countries. (Although Lucas claimed to have had the Star Wars saga mapped out even at this early stage, the fact that he allowed this plot element to remain in Foster's novel has been cited as evidence that he hadn't yet decided on the characters' true backstory.) However, Lucas has stated before, that this tension was on purpose, to show that the two had feelings for one another, but that they did not know exactly what type of feelings.

The Kaiburr Crystal was originally developed in the second version of Lucas's The Star Wars script. The script for Star Wars: A New Hope was a revised version of the fourth draft, which only contained a few dialogue contributions by Gloria Katz and Willard Huyck.

Dauphin said:

Also, Obi Wan tells Yoda "that boy is our last hope" and Yoda says "no... there is another." OBI WAN DELIVERED LEIA!! He should have known this!!! LOL

Well, I know many people see that as a plot hole, but I've always believed that Obi-Wan and Yoda essentially wanted to train only one of the twin brothers? Why? Because they were scared of those twins. Yeah, scared. They were the offspring of Vader after all. It would have been reckless to train two grown-up force users in a rush. So they decided to focus their energies on Luke, and used Leia as a political figure, someone smart who could lead the rebellion both politically and financially (thanks to her link with the Organa family). Perhaps they also felt that Leia was definitely less powerful than Luke (after all, the Emperor and Vader only detected Luke through the Force, but not Leia...) So, the Yoda's line "No...there's another" could mean that, even if Luke died, they could still train Leia in a rush, even if that meant they had to put their trust in the lesser and more uncertain "Plan-B"...

Of course, this could be bullshit, just another retcon badly written during the end of the Revenge of the Sith script In fact, the whole SW Saga is one big, fragile, clear retcon for me But as I've said, it works, because though fragile and forced, those retcons are still possible. I mean, Obi-Wan never said to Luke "You don't have brothers/sisters and your father is not Darth Vader". He never said that, so...

[Edited 8/13/10 13:41pm]

http://www.morningstar.nildram.co.uk/A_New_Sith.html

Where everything will make sense.

Actually, after watching the original trilogy, you see subtle hints that there's more to Leia than meets the eye;

1) She was able to resist Vader's torture on the first Death Star

2) Despite being miles apart, she 'heard' Luke's cry for help.

3) Killing Jabba - strictly badass

4) Her marksmanship and piloting skills

It was odd Vader couldn't detect she was Force-sensitive. He detected Luke in ANH during the Battle of Yavin("the Force is strong with this one..").

lazycrockett said:

http://www.morningstar.nildram.co.uk/A_New_Sith.html

Where everything will make sense.

Lol I love it! Almost as much as:

uPtoWnNY said:

Actually, after watching the original trilogy, you see subtle hints that there's more to Leia than meets the eye;

1) She was able to resist Vader's torture on the first Death Star

2) Despite being miles apart, she 'heard' Luke's cry for help.

3) Killing Jabba - strictly badass

4) Her marksmanship and piloting skills

It was odd Vader couldn't detect she was Force-sensitive. He detected Luke in ANH during the Battle of Yavin("the Force is strong with this one..").

sexism.

lazycrockett said:

http://www.morningstar.nildram.co.uk/A_New_Sith.html

Where everything will make sense.

Some points are completely valid:

-R2 worked as a spy for the Rebellion during the time between Ep.III and IV

-the Death Star's plans were always inside R2 (in fact, Obi-Wan ALWAYS wanted to go to Alderaan to deliver the plans to Bail Organa, the problem is: the planet was annihilated before they arrived, mainly as a punishment on the Organa family for their links with the Rebellion. In fact, Luke, Obi-Wan and the others didn't even knew that Leia was locked inside the Death Star. The original plan was to travel to Alderaan. Period)

-Yoda and Obi-Wan were scared to death of Luke and Leia

-Leia never showed any strong affinity with the Force so they never bothered to train her as a Jedi warrior.

-another point is specially poignant: at the end of Ep.IV, the three original leaders of the Rebellion, Yoda/Obi-Wan/Bail Organa are dead (Organa, Obi-Wan) or M.I.A. (Yoda). If not for Obi-Wan's Force Ghost ability, perhaps Yoda could have never met/trained Luke...

other points seem completely false or downright ridiculous (nerd's material), and make the article pointless. Sorry:

-R2 made a plan with the Jawas. well, NO

-Chewie WASN'T a rebel spy. The fact that he was a friend of Yoda is just a coincidence and a cute/harmless retcon of the Ep.III. It's also a coincidence that he and Han were at Tattooine when Obi-Wan needed a ship to travel to Alderaan...Well, no, it's not even a coincidence because Chewie was never important to begin with, he was just "that wookie who met Yoda once". So? Does that matter to the Rebellion or the general scheme of things?? No. Also, before the events of Ep.IV A New Hope, Chewie didn't know that Anakin was Vader and that he had two sons, Leia and Luke. He didn't know all that. He didn't even heard about those names before! In fact, Chewie joined the Rebellion during the Battle of the Death Star in Ep.IV. In the Ep.III he fought for his planet during the Clone Wars, and managed to meet the General Yoda because he was royalty. That's a big difference.

wrong wrong wrong

[Edited 8/13/10 14:37pm]

lazycrockett said:

uPtoWnNY said:

Actually, after watching the original trilogy, you see subtle hints that there's more to Leia than meets the eye;

1) She was able to resist Vader's torture on the first Death Star

2) Despite being miles apart, she 'heard' Luke's cry for help.

3) Killing Jabba - strictly badass

4) Her marksmanship and piloting skills

It was odd Vader couldn't detect she was Force-sensitive. He detected Luke in ANH during the Battle of Yavin("the Force is strong with this one..").

sexism.

Incestuous hints...I know it wasn't Lucas original intention, but 5 episodes later, if we watch the original 1977 SW retrospectively, that torture scene is just...wrong for some obvious reasons

[Edited 8/13/10 14:41pm]

graffiti bridge. nuff said.

i saw that film 'the Ten Commandments' the other day. what a load of old rubbish.

I just can't buy that Return of the Jedi has a good story. I didn't feel a good story when I saw it in the theater back in 1983, and I don't feel it now.

I had no sense of a progressing narrative where situations are linked and the characters go through a progression.

It just seems haphazard that everyone conveniently carpools together to Endor, the entire introduction and idea of the Ewoks and their town and their battle (this shit is backwards it seems like something from the Logan's Run mentality, and the whole point of Star Wars was that is was an artistic/conceptual/textural leap beyond the scifi norm of Logan's Run type of shit.

It seems like a bunch of actors on a bunch of sets.

Star Wars seemed like a different characters being thrown together by plots that all came from different wrolds and were cuaght up in different environments that seemed real.

Just compare the feel of Tattoine in Star Wars to how it feels in Return of the Jedi...

real vs fake theater set.

The actors never even act like they're scared or in danger in Return of the Jedi. It's like seeing a movie created for a fan gathering. No sense of reality. Star Wars had a sense of reality. I'm sure this was because Lucas actually sweated over it. and it shows in the shots, different situations etc.

Star Wars has such great moments like the discovery of the Leia hologram, attack of the sand people, the cantina scene, the first showing of the hyperdrive's power, the trash compacter, the end battle with the concentric trench visual and the formation of tie fighters on the chase, the imperial conference room scene... just the dialogue is so much better.

There isn't a line in Return of the Jedi that can compare to the Princess upon meeting the heavy bad guy saying, "Governer Tarkin, I should have recognized your foul stench when I was borught on board." His response, "Charming to the last" in his elegant accent.

Return of the Jedi gives us: "You know I grewup here" "you know you're gonna die here."

lame lame lame

ernestsewell said:

HobbesLeCute said:

Here's my attempt to fill in the Terminator 2 plot hole.

At this point in the movie, the T-1000 is glitching and would not be able to become a perfect duplicate of Sarah Connor. I haven't seen the theatrical release in years so I don't know if this happens in that, but in the Director's Cut when he does morph into Sarah, his legs meld in with the grating on the floor, a dead giveaway that he's a fake. From a distance he might be able to trick John with her appearence, but as soon as it became apparent it was the T-1000 he would likely try to escape.

I think, realizing he was not operating at full capacity, he decided it would be more effective to lure John out of hiding to try and save his mother, who would be visibly in peril if John had come across her while the T-1000 had her pinned down. He realizes John would not necessarily behave rationally were he to find his mother in a life threatening situation, because of the risk he took to save her at the mental institution (Something he was reminded continually was an unwise decision). If in a fit of emotions, he might have foolishly rushed to save her from the T-1000, at which point it'd be an easy kill for him, something that might not be effective if it were apparent she were already dead.

Just a thought. It might very well be a plot hole, but that's the best explaination I can think of to the contrary.

[Edited 8/13/10 11:55am]

Now THAT makes sense!!! Fenwick - SUCK IT!

Actually, I've been thinking about this all day since I posted it. Had that plan worked, it would've made for a great dark ending to Terminator 2. Both John and Sarah would've been easy to take care of for the T-1000 from there... At which point, Skynet would've won. Arnie would be the only remaining threat to the T-1000, and would probably try to finish him off out of his newly found sense of empathy for his human friends. Even if he did succeed, he couldn't self-terminate because of his programming, meaning he'd still be there to set the foundations for Skynet. Since John ordered him not to kill humans, with enough manpower someone would probably be able to over power and disable him, setting the course for an easy, John Connor free future for Skynet.

I wouldn't want Terminator 2 to end like that in a million years. I love the characters in that and I love that they eventually won their hard fought battle and hate that the franchise ever went any further than that, even if there were some occassionaly entertaining moments in T3 and even the TV Series. But I think it would've been a cool "What if" scenario for sure.

[Edited 8/14/10 1:29am]

lawd this thread

co -

Yeah, man. Ride that tauntaun all the way home!

I honestly can't hate Return of the Jedi. It's easy to recognize it as the worst of the original trilogy, but it was also the first movie I ever remember seeing. I feel like I'd betraying the innocent child within me by saying it sucked.

I wish there were some way they could make a new trilogy out of the Thrawn books; I think the Grand Admiral was a great villian. No reliance on the force or anything like that; he was just a brilliant strategist and always one step ahead of the heroes. It might help that I pictured him as a blue David Bowie as I was reading the books.

The only problem is that you knew he was going to lose eventually because he was up against Luke, Han and Leia.

HobbesLeCute said:

I honestly can't hate Return of the Jedi. It's easy to recognize it as the worst of the original trilogy, but it was also the first movie I ever remember seeing. I feel like I'd betraying the innocent child within me by saying it sucked.

I wish there were some way they could make a new trilogy out of the Thrawn books; I think the Grand Admiral was a great villian. No reliance on the force or anything like that; he was just a brilliant strategist and always one step ahead of the heroes. It might help that I pictured him as a blue David Bowie as I was reading the books.

The only problem is that you knew he was going to lose eventually because he was up against Luke, Han and Leia.

I saw it in the cinema - it's possibly the first one I saw too I read the film tie-in books long before I saw the movies

ZombieKitten said:

HobbesLeCute said:

I honestly can't hate Return of the Jedi. It's easy to recognize it as the worst of the original trilogy, but it was also the first movie I ever remember seeing. I feel like I'd betraying the innocent child within me by saying it sucked.

I wish there were some way they could make a new trilogy out of the Thrawn books; I think the Grand Admiral was a great villian. No reliance on the force or anything like that; he was just a brilliant strategist and always one step ahead of the heroes. It might help that I pictured him as a blue David Bowie as I was reading the books.

The only problem is that you knew he was going to lose eventually because he was up against Luke, Han and Leia.

I saw it in the cinema - it's possibly the first one I saw too I read the film tie-in books long before I saw the movies

I still have the Return of the Jedi storybook and Cassete tape, which was probably the first time I ever experienced anything Star Wars. It came out in theaters a year before I was born, and it was probably a bit of a wait before it came out on VHS.

HobbesLeCute said:

ZombieKitten said:

I saw it in the cinema - it's possibly the first one I saw too I read the film tie-in books long before I saw the movies

I still have the Return of the Jedi storybook and Cassete tape, which was probably the first time I ever experienced anything Star Wars. It came out in theaters a year before I was born, and it was probably a bit of a wait before it came out on VHS.

The first movie I saw in the cinema was Mary Poppins and the first movie I saw on VHS was the animated Lord of the Rings. My grandma took me to see Indiana Jones at the cinema because she believed me when I told her it was a movie for kids I feel bad now, she had nightmares!

ZombieKitten said:

HobbesLeCute said:

I still have the Return of the Jedi storybook and Cassete tape, which was probably the first time I ever experienced anything Star Wars. It came out in theaters a year before I was born, and it was probably a bit of a wait before it came out on VHS.

The first movie I saw in the cinema was Mary Poppins and the first movie I saw on VHS was the animated Lord of the Rings. My grandma took me to see Indiana Jones at the cinema because she believed me when I told her it was a movie for kids I feel bad now, she had nightmares!

I think the first movie I saw in theaters was probably a rerelease of Snow White & The Seven Dwarves. And it terrified me.

The next movie I remember seeing in theaters was Labyrinth, which also terrified me. Not the goblins or the dark imagery, but for some reason, David Bowie. I screamed and cried when he first appeared.

I remember seeing Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom pretty young, which also scared the shit out of me.

Yeah, seeing Dave for the first time when you're young is always traumatizing.

novabrkr said:

Yeah, seeing Dave for the first time when you're young is always traumatizing.

it's those tights he wore

He got really handsome in his late forties and was like one of the best looking 50-something men on the planet, but before that he really looked sort of creepy and weird most of the time. I remember being a kid and just thinking how EVIL he looked.

novabrkr said:

He got really handsome in his late forties and was like one of the best looking 50-something men on the planet, but before that he really looked sort of creepy and weird most of the time. I remember being a kid and just thinking how EVIL he looked.

Yeah.

ZombieKitten said:

novabrkr said:

He got really handsome in his late forties and was like one of the best looking 50-something men on the planet, but before that he really looked sort of creepy and weird most of the time. I remember being a kid and just thinking how EVIL he looked.

If that were the David Bowie in Labyrinth, I think I would've been traumatized for life. I LOVE weird 70's Bowie, but I doubt I could've handled it when I was 3.

novabrkr said:

He got really handsome in his late forties and was like one of the best looking 50-something men on the planet, but before that he really looked sort of creepy and weird most of the time. I remember being a kid and just thinking how EVIL he looked.

I agree with you. I think midde age Bowie was extremely good looking.

HobbesLeCute said:

ZombieKitten said:

If that were the David Bowie in Labyrinth, I think I would've been traumatized for life. I LOVE weird 70's Bowie, but I doubt I could've handled it when I was 3.

I don't understand parents sometimes, 3 year olds watch BARNEY or whatever that thing is called, not PG movies