Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

people will lose interest if there's nothing worth being interested in

i can't believe he dropped the ball on the prequels man. another 3 classic star wars films?
wow that would have boosted it's relevancy for another three generations EASILY

think of all the characters, weapons, planets, scenes, lines...all the classic top tier **** that was in the classic films. That's the stuff that's been constantly referenced in pop culture and in conversation since the franchise debuted in '77

there's basically none of that in the prequels. So, less pop culture will spawn off the newer ****, and that means less people will be familiar with star wars. people can't just live off the original three films forever. It's not something that's easy to enjoy like the Beatles catalog or something. Film is entirely different.

God, it's insane. I hope he tries again with three other films, this time with competent top tier directors.

Can't say that Star Wars has ever had any real relevancy in my life.

Star Wars has never really had any relevacy.

KMC has already lost its relevancy... that's a much bigger problem!

I still maintain that the Rebel Alliance was a terrorist organization. Its all about who's perspective you look at while watching these films.

Originally posted by Impediment
I still maintain that the Rebel Alliance was a terrorist organization. Its all about who's perspective you look at while watching these films.

I completely agree.

Would you consider the Continental Congress and Washington a terrorist? They were fighting for their freedom to abolish unjust rule.

The Empire was a galaxy-wide tyranny under the dictatorship of Palpatine. The Imperial Senate was disbanded and the Death Star was built in order to keep every star system in check. I don't think the colloquial usage of terrorism would make sense to describe the Rebel Alliance.

And Star Wars will never lose relevancy. The Force, Yoda, Darth Vader, "I am your father", Stormtroopers, John William's iconic music, etc. will always withstand.

Originally posted by Korto Vos
Would you consider the Continental Congress and Washington a terrorist? They were fighting for their freedom to abolish unjust rule.

The Empire was a galaxy-wide tyranny under the dictatorship of Palpatine. The Imperial Senate was disbanded and the Death Star was built in order to keep every star system in check. I don't think the colloquial usage of terrorism would make sense to describe the Rebel Alliance.

I disagree, Korto. I truly believe that the "righteousness" of the Rebel Alliance was all based upon perspective.

Grand Moff Tarkin destroyed Alderaan and killed millions, yes, but how many innocents died on the two Death Stars?

All because of a rogue military faction that deemed the Empire "evil".

Lies.

I speak no lies.

awermm

Originally posted by Impediment
I disagree, Korto. I truly believe that the "righteousness" of the Rebel Alliance was all based upon perspective.

Grand Moff Tarkin destroyed Alderaan and killed millions, yes, but how many innocents died on the two Death Stars?

All because of a rogue military faction that deemed the Empire "evil".

If you're not with us you're against us.

evillaugh

I just re-watched all the Star wars movies and i have to say that the senate and people got what they deserved by being petty and bureaucratic rather then dealing with actual concerns of the people.

You could say the same thing about America's government.

Originally posted by Impediment
You could say the same thing about America's government. I do all the time. It is how real world government and politics became relevant to me which gave me an understanding of how faulty the system was. The school would have done a better job at educating me if they showed Star Wars senate scenes rather then boring books on government.

Originally posted by Impediment
Grand Moff Tarkin destroyed Alderaan and killed millions, yes, but how many innocents died on the two Death Stars? None. Every Imperial=Evil. Fact. Even Todd, the janitor.




Star Wars will lose its cultural significance around the end of the 21st century. Lucas will die and copyright doors will open wide, flooding the various markets with new Star Wars crap. Within 80 years the last of the current generation of fans will have died off, and their children will have moved on to newer, cooler franchises of the day. 2090--gonna be a good year.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
None. Every Imperial=Evil. Fact. Even Todd, the janitor.

So Lunch Lady Doris, who worked in one of the many, many cafeterias on the Death Star was evil? She made "evil meatloaf"?

Nah, I don't buy it.

Originally posted by Impediment
So Lunch Lady Doris, who worked in one of the many, many cafeterias on the Death Star was evil? She made "evil meatloaf"?

Nah, I don't buy it. The Star Wars EU features a book detailing how the Empire contracted out to bartenders, chefs, and common bouncers to work in the Death Star off-duty lounges.

All dead.



But through their sacrifice, they're with Allah the Force, now.

I'm still drawn to the "Clerks" speech where the roofer guy says, "A roofer listens to this (points to his heart), not his wallet."

I actually think that if someone is part of the war machine complex they are fair game as a target from: Dorah the lunch lady to Bob the mechanic and Jose the Laborer.

I dont really see the Empire as Evil as they seemed more like order and stability to the galaxy. although how the emperor came to power was criminal but so long as he took care of the citizens with standard living and basics, I actually prefer the Empire over the Rebel Alliance.
hitler

I wonder if George Lucas used the German Reich as a metaphor for the Empire. On a more positive perspective, one could see how the Empire could be viewed as the "Nazis of the Galaxy" (Axis) and the Rebels (Alliies) were struggling to topple said power.

Still, I believe that such disregard for so many innocents aboard the two Death Stars warrants that the Rebels be more associated with terrorism, noble intentions be damned.

Originally posted by Impediment
I wonder if George Lucas used the German Reich as a metaphor for the Empire. On a more positive perspective, one could see how the Empire could be viewed as the "Nazis of the Galaxy" (Axis) and the Rebels (Alliies) were struggling to topple said power.

Still, I believe that such disregard for so many innocents aboard the two Death Stars warrants that the Rebels be more associated with terrorism, noble intentions be damned. I guess you haven't seen the youtube star wars documentary video. they referenced the possible and likely influence of George Lucas Star Wars vision. One of the things was Nazi color scheme, storm troopers and Darth Vader's Helmet being similar to the German helmet.

Originally posted by Zabrak
people will lose interest if there's nothing worth being interested in

i can't believe he dropped the ball on the prequels man. another 3 classic star wars films?
wow that would have boosted it's relevancy for another three generations EASILY

think of all the characters, weapons, planets, scenes, lines...all the classic top tier **** that was in the classic films. That's the stuff that's been constantly referenced in pop culture and in conversation since the franchise debuted in '77

there's basically none of that in the prequels. So, less pop culture will spawn off the newer ****, and that means less people will be familiar with star wars. people can't just live off the original three films forever. It's not something that's easy to enjoy like the Beatles catalog or something. Film is entirely different.

God, it's insane. I hope he tries again with three other films, this time with competent top tier directors. Revenge of the sith is my favorite star wars movie. granted I am sure I am in the minority here but there was some good in the original prequels. Palpatine was phenomenal as well on screen in the sort time we see him.

Lmao that this is a thread!

Would you care to explain why?

Originally posted by Impediment
I disagree, Korto. I truly believe that the "righteousness" of the Rebel Alliance was all based upon perspective.

Grand Moff Tarkin destroyed Alderaan and killed millions, yes, but how many innocents died on the two Death Stars?

All because of a rogue military faction that deemed the Empire "evil".

Everyone has a certain moral/ethical duty & personal calling in any situation, that is dependent on an individual's socioeconomic status, age, gender, and race.

Oppression, cruelty and violence, and pride were the vibes emanated by the Galactic Empire. These are unrighteous characteristics that have to be opposed to reestablish righteousness and natural law.

The Rebel Alliance's ethical duty was to dismantle the Galactic Empire. The ethical duty of all warriors in battle is to fight. Therefore, even if thousands died on the Death Star, it was ultimately the 'right' action. It is why one cannot describe events as merely "good" and "evil," because that is too 'black and white.' Killing anybody is considered "evil," but in an arena such as war, the duty of a soldier, especially one fighting for a righteous cause, is to defeat the opposition, even if that might mandate the loss of lives. Nobody is 'innocent' in war.

Originally posted by quanchi112
original prequels Are there additional prequels?

Originally posted by Korto Vos
Everyone has a certain moral/ethical duty & personal calling in any situation that is dependent on an individual's socioeconomic status, age, gender, occupation, and race.

Oppression, cruelty and violence, and pride were the vibes emanated by the Galactic Empire. These are unrighteous characteristics that have to be opposed to reestablish righteousness and natural law.

The Rebel Alliance's ethical duty was to dismantle the Galactic Empire. The ethical duty of all warriors in battle is to fight. Therefore, even if thousands died on the Death Star, it was ultimately the 'right' action. It is why one cannot describe events as merely "good" and "evil," because that is too 'black and white.' Killing anybody is considered "evil," but in an arena such as war, the duty of a soldier, especially one fighting for a righteous cause, is to defeat the opposition, even if that might mandate the loss of lives. Nobody is 'innocent' in war.


You make a very valid point, Korto. However, I must again resort to the "point of perspective" argument. The "righteous cause" was from one entirely opposit perspective. Were the 5,000+ innocent people who died in the 9/11 attacks "just a liability of war"? Just like the WTC innocents who died from the plans of "insane" foreign terrorists, would you lump the innocents in with the Death Star victims?

Originally posted by Impediment
You make a very valid point, Korto. However, I must again resort to the "point of perspective" argument. The "righteous cause" was from one entirely opposit perspective. Were the 5,000+ innocent people who died in the 9/11 attacks "just a liability of war"? Just like the WTC innocents who died from the plans of "insane" foreign terrorists, would you lump the innocents in with the Death Star victims?

A massacre of civilians to promote an ideology is not righteous nor in tune with natural law. The actions of those behind the 9/11 tragedy were clearly unrighteousness and cannot be justified in any manner whatsoever. One can argue "perspective" if an individual performs his ethical duty, and that action is in contrast with that of another. However, in this instance, the ethical duties of the perpetrators of September 11th were clearly violated. If they wished to promote their ideology, they could have accomplished that by peaceful methods. Sadly, they resorted to violence, and hopefully have faced justice.

And the vast majority of people on the Death Star were Imperial Military staff, trained and prepared for battle. Or at the very least, mindful of the risk of death in combat.

Originally posted by Korto Vos
And the vast majority of people on the Death Star were Imperial Military staff, trained and prepared for battle. Or at the very least, mindful of the risk of death in combat. I'd say this is the key point. We call our soldiers who die overseas heroes, and their killers "murderers", but we also know they volunteered, were trained, prepared, and understood what they were doing and the risks they took. The Death Star was the ultimate destructive power in the Imperial navy, and was filled to the brim with millions of trained and professional military men. It was a planet-buster in the midst of a war--they knew it was a target.


Besides. Any sane, moral, rational man who witnessed Alderaan being destroyed and didn't revolt, defect, protest, etc., was an immoral sonuvabitch who got what was coming to him. Frankly it would have been downright immoral to stand by and allow such a weapon to continue operating. The deaths of the few who did protest was a cheap price to ensure the deaths of so many evil creatures.


Greater good>Lesser evil and all that.

Originally posted by Korto Vos
A massacre of civilians to promote an ideology is not righteous nor in tune with natural law. The actions of those behind the 9/11 tragedy were clearly unrighteousness and cannot be justified in any manner whatsoever. One can argue "perspective" if an individual performs his ethical duty, and that action is in contrast with that of another. However, in this instance, the ethical duties of the perpetrators of September 11th were clearly violated. If they wished to promote their ideology, they could have accomplished that by peaceful methods. Sadly, they resorted to violence, and hopefully have faced justice.

And the vast majority of people on the Death Star were Imperial Military staff, trained and prepared for battle. Or at the very least, mindful of the risk of death in combat.

So what you're saying is that the Rebels should have peacefully presented their ideals for peace to the Galactic Empire? Knowing fully well that the Empire, Darth Siduous especially, would have scoffed at such a notion? In my opinion, it would be like a band of hippies playing guitars outside of the White House protesting for Obama to cease all war in the Middle East, and then resorted to radical acts when their "requests" werent met.

Ethical duty, while I wholly endorse this idea, was not an option for the Rebels. The Empire, totalitarian as it was, was, in fact, an established government body that was violently overthrown by, for lack of a better word, "radicals". The Rebels were not once documented showing an attempt for peaceful negotiations or diplomacy. No, the Rebal Alliance was portrayed as a military force that vied for the downfall of a "corrupt" government body that did not suit their ideals.

BTW, you'll have to pardon my less than admirable debate skills since I'm buzzed.

Originally posted by Impediment
So what you're saying is that the Rebels should have peacefully presented their ideals for peace to the Galactic Empire? Knowing fully well that the Empire, Darth Siduous especially, would have scoffed at such a notion? In my opinion, it would be like a band of hippies playing guitars outside of the White House protesting for Obama to cease all war in the Middle East, and then resorted to radical acts when their "requests" werent met.

Ethical duty, while I wholly endorse this idea, was not an option for the Rebels. The Empire, totalitarian as it was, was, in fact, an established government body that was violently overthrown by, for lack of a better word, "radicals". The Rebels were not once documented showing an attempt for peaceful negotiations or diplomacy. No, the Rebal Alliance was portrayed as a military force that vied for the downfall of a "corrupt" government body that did not suit their ideals.

BTW, you'll have to pardon my less than admirable debate skills since I'm buzzed.


Wait, perhaps I misunderstood your previous post, but that's exactly what I'm saying.

When all possible attempts to reestablish some democracy failed, and the tyranny of the Galactic Empire was exposed, the Rebel Alliance was formed. When negotiations could not transpire, the only means left was by decisive action, aka war.

What I responded earlier was to differentiate between the actions of the Rebel Alliance and those of the 9/11 terrorists, in which both killed individuals who were "innocent" (except the Death Star mostly contained Stormtroopers and Imperial Military --> soldiers).

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Are there additional prequels? I just meant that even though phantom menace was bad imo Darth Maul was awesome and very original. I also didn't care a lot for attack of the clones but enjoyed the overall plot, the yoda/count dooku fight, etc. ROTS I liked overall but the other two weren't what I'd call great movies on their own but they did add greatly to the star wars mythos.

Originally posted by Korto Vos
Wait, perhaps I misunderstood your previous post, but that's exactly what I'm saying.

When all possible attempts to reestablish some democracy failed, and the tyranny of the Galactic Empire was exposed, the Rebel Alliance was formed. When negotiations could not transpire, the only means left was by decisive action, aka war.

What I responded earlier was to differentiate between the actions of the Rebel Alliance and those of the 9/11 terrorists, in which both killed individuals who were "innocent" (except the Death Star mostly contained Stormtroopers and Imperial Military --> soldiers).

And by that logic, you're not calling that................radical?

Both Death Stars, while mainly populated by Imperials, was, in fact, populated by innocents. As a former U.S. Army Infantryman who has seen combat, much to my chagrin, I do agree that the death of the innocent is, sadly, a constant. I mean, that's what happens in war. Innocent life will be taken. There is no getting around this.

However, my "perspective argument" goes back to the fact that Mon Mothma, the Rebellion leader, knew fully well that when the "many Bothans who died" to bring the Rebellion the stolen Death Star plans, innocents would die. Now, my point is that while calculating such an epic event as The Battle of Yavin and the assualt on Death Star I, how important is supposed "liberation from a force to be disagreed with" so important that X amount of completely innocent lives need be ended? It all goes back to the ends of each spectrum argument.

Before I respond to your previous post, let me make it clear that I pray I haven't offended you in any way. This is a very touchy subject, and such matters have the potential to be quite offensive to others.

Secondly, one of the most righteous duties is the respect of life. I believe in a universal consciousness, and that each and every one of us has a transcendental soul within that ultimately unites us. Therefore, even though I talk about ethical duty with regard to possible justification of the deaths of millions, I do not take it lightly.

Originally posted by Korto Vos
Before I respond to your previous post, let me make it clear that I pray I haven't offended you in any way. This is a very touchy subject, and such matters have the potential to be quite offensive to others.

Secondly, one of the most righteous duties is the respect of life. I believe in a universal consciousness, and that each and every one of us has a transcendental soul within. Therefore, even though I talk about ethical duty as justifying the deaths of millions, I do not take it lightly.

You havent offended me in the slightest. You are being very courteous in your arguments.

Originally posted by Impediment
And by that logic, you're not calling that................radical?

Both Death Stars, while mainly populated by Imperials, was, in fact, populated by innocents. As a former U.S. Army Infantryman who has seen combat, much to my chagrin, I do agree that the death of the innocent is, sadly, a constant. I mean, that's what happens in war. Innocent life will be taken. There is no getting around this.

However, my "perspective argument" goes back to the fact that Mon Mothma, the Rebellion leader, knew fully well that when the "many Bothans who died" to bring the Rebellion the stolen Death Star plans, innocents would die. Now, my point is that while calculating such an epic event as The Battle of Yavin and the assualt on Death Star I, how important is supposed "liberation from a force to be disagreed with" so important that X amount of completely innocent lives need be ended? It all goes back to the ends of each spectrum argument.

Yes, even if the entire Death Star, was, as Lucien stated, "filled to the brim with millions of trained and professional military men," and these men, as I stated earlier, were "mindful of the risk of death in combat," the vast majority of these individuals were people trying to carve a career for themselves and loved ones elsewhere. Perhaps those that witnessed the Death Star's destruction of Alderaan couldn't exactly leave, even if in their hearts they wholeheartedly were against the Empire's attack.

But it is for that reason why the Death Star had to be destroyed. Except for Tarkin and a few other sick bastards, the large majority of those men would have gladly given their lives to see this monstrous creation destroyed and the Empire vanquished.


If all else fails, what else can you do? The Empire represented everything unrighteousness, and the Old Republic, while corrupt and far from perfect, at least tried to represent liberty and stability. When peace and negotiations failed, the Rebel Alliance had to fight to remove the Empire. And the Death Star was the primary target. In war, if the primary target is cleared, it's easier to complete the mission, am I correct?


This is when the notion of ethical duty becomes fudged. The men aboard the Death Star were military staff, and as a former member of the Armed Forces, you understand the meaning of trusting your senior officer and his orders. They did their duty, and they did it honorably.

Likewise, the Rebel Alliance did its ethical duty. The only body that failed to act righteously was the Galactic Empire as whole. Sadly, to destroy this body requires the destruction of its primary weapon, and therefore the loss of lives of the men that control this weapon.

Originally posted by Impediment
Would you care to explain why? Well because while Star Wars discussions make for a great hobby, I thought the relevancy of fiction was fairly established.

I seem to recall doing a lot of posting in a KMC Star Wars forum way back when, so all due respect, I'm not sure why this thread is here....

Moved, and has gone rather off-topic.

You must be trolling.

Off-topic, but pretty compelling

Is it?

I've rather enjoyed reading it, personally.

I say carry on.

Do you now?

As much as people dislike the prequels, it helped to revive the SW relevancy in a huge way.

Originally posted by General G
I've rather enjoyed reading it, personally.

I say carry on.

I would, but Impediment hasn't responded.

Which is quite a shame, actually. Get him in here.

Originally posted by Sith Master X
As much as people dislike the prequels, it helped to revive the SW relevancy in a huge way.

But for short time. We are in 2011 and your casual fan doesn't mind SW anymore. And the pop culture references around are still from the original trilogy.

You can't say the prequels made a true impact in pop culture, and as such in the long run, they are more or less meaningless. That is GL's legacy for his rushed blue screen prequels.

People are way too hard on the prequels. It can't be as groundbreaking as the OT, it just wasn't possible.

Originally posted by General G
People are way too hard on the prequels. It can't be as groundbreaking as the OT, it just wasn't possible.

Of course it was. In fact they are only semi-popular due to the originals.
But GL didn't had the vision to pull it off.

By the way, I make you a challenge: try to see the prequels in low quality. It won't be better then your averace C level Sci-Fi movie

You make it sound like that's a bad thing, though. The only reason they were made was because of the originals, so it would only make sense that the only reason they are semi-popular is because of the originals. GL didn't have the directorial skills to pull it off, he should have left it with someone more skilled in doing the job. These three films could have been infinitely times better than they were, and they should have been. I'm not sure I would mind terribly if they decided to remake the prequels with a better director, but have Lucas involved. That way, people who aren't happy with the original prequels can have their remakes and people who want the remakes can be happy.

And I think your challenge is silly. I wouldn't stick the Star Wars prequels in the same category as Megashark vs. Giant Octopus or whatever it's called lol

Originally posted by General G
People are way too hard on the prequels. It can't be as groundbreaking as the OT, it just wasn't possible.

Why is that? The Matrix (even though quite overrated) made such an impact, LOTR did... Spiderman did... So why can't SW PT...

I agree: Lucas didn't have the vision (anymore) to pull it off.

I agree about LotR and Spiderman, but not so sure about The Matrix making such an impact.

And I say that the SW PT couldn't make such an impact because they had made their impact already. That doesn't mean that they couldn't make an impact again later on of course, but the impact the OT made was bigger than that of Spiderman or LotR and the prequels had to follow that. There's no way they could have followed that. They definitely could have been made better, that's a no-brainer. But they could never follow the OT.

So this rebel alliance overthrew an Emperor who was corrupt, to bring back a republic that was equally corrupt.


I must agree though that this movie is entirely perspective.

I want you to imagine you're on Felucia. You're a nysillin farmer. During the age of the Republic you got the occasional pirate raids and in return you got the occasional Republic response. I mean, usually if any response was given it was by a ship who was in the region or by local authorities. But the pirate raids were more frequent than the help and you managed to live your life accordingly.

Now an Empire rolls around. All of a sudden Felucia falls within a sector ruled by a personal Moff who sees the money that could be made lost because of pirates. It doesn't matter that the raids ruin livelihoods or ruin profits. They have got to stop. So the Moff takes it upon himself, it's his sector after all, to not only protect Felucia from further pirate raids, but seek them out and exterminate them with extreme prejudice. Do you know what you get to hear, farmer?

"The pirates will be dealt with. You don't have to worry about them anymore."

Now I ask ya, would you give a **** what kind of pants the son-of-a-***** who shot you was wearing?

Originally posted by King of Blades
So this rebel alliance overthrew an Emperor who was corrupt, to bring back a republic that was equally corrupt.


Most historical revolutions on earth were like that.

Yeah, it's kinda fun, really.

Not really.. but rather factual.

Originally posted by King of Blades
So this rebel alliance overthrew an Emperor who was corrupt, to bring back a republic that was equally corrupt.


I must agree though that this movie is entirely perspective.

I want you to imagine you're on Felucia. You're a nysillin farmer. During the age of the Republic you got the occasional pirate raids and in return you got the occasional Republic response. I mean, usually if any response was given it was by a ship who was in the region or by local authorities. But the pirate raids were more frequent than the help and you managed to live your life accordingly.

Now an Empire rolls around. All of a sudden Felucia falls within a sector ruled by a personal Moff who sees the money that could be made lost because of pirates. It doesn't matter that the raids ruin livelihoods or ruin profits. They have got to stop. So the Moff takes it upon himself, it's his sector after all, to not only protect Felucia from further pirate raids, but seek them out and exterminate them with extreme prejudice. Do you know what you get to hear, farmer?

"The pirates will be dealt with. You don't have to worry about them anymore."

Now I ask ya, would you give a **** what kind of pants the son-of-a-***** who shot you was wearing?

"What good is having a business if the Empire takes it from you?"

As said by Biggs to Luke in the cut ANH scenes, and he goes on to explain that the Empire has started to systematically nationalise all business.

GL clearly intended for the Empire to be evil in every way and any attempt to argue that the Empire was good for people is automatically invalidated by the rules of the franchise. By those same rules, what the good guys bring about when they defeat the Empire will automatically be a good thing.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
every way and

Exactly. For example they built the Death Star to destroy planets, thats practically OTT genocide and therefore - evil .

I'm sure this was raised in the EU when someone pointed to the construction of the 'Death' Star, Star 'Destroyer', Sun 'Crusher' and many others as being pointers to the Empire's evil nature. The point was being made to an engineer or builder of these things or something but I can't remember who they were...

Damn SW fiction - too much content!

I apologize for my absence. I have been extraordinarily busy and haven't had ample time to rebut.

I'll be online soon to make a post.

Originally posted by Impediment
You make a very valid point, Korto. However, I must again resort to the "point of perspective" argument. The "righteous cause" was from one entirely opposit perspective. Were the 5,000+ innocent people who died in the 9/11 attacks "just a liability of war"? Just like the WTC innocents who died from the plans of "insane" foreign terrorists, would you lump the innocents in with the Death Star victims?

Kind of a faulty analogy. The innocents of 9/11 weren't inside a giant super-weapon that destroys planets. They were attacked without cause or blame and they're deaths weren't necessary or in service to a higher good. They weren't an immediate threat to anyone lie the Death Star was.

The innocent people on the Death Star however, very much were collateral damage. There was simply no feasible way to get them off the Death Star and destroy it at the same time. Should Luke have waited for them to vacate the premises before attacking it? Well he seriously didn't have that luxury now did he?

Originally posted by Impediment
I apologize for my absence. I have been extraordinarily busy and haven't had ample time to rebut.

I'll be online soon to make a post.

Ah, take your time. I look forward to continuing this conversation.

We'll be waiting.

There were no innocent people on the Death Star- that's the point. You are discussing the wrong franchise if you want to get into that moral argument.

And if you do wish to carry that argument on, please create a new thread with a relevant title, thanks.

Why are people saying the empire was stable?

It was completely racist to non-humans, and sexist to women. Unless you were in the imperial military you were not happy.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
There were no innocent people on the Death Star- that's the point. You are discussing the wrong franchise if you want to get into that moral argument.

And if you do wish to carry that argument on, please create a new thread with a relevant title, thanks.

Hmm....the Empire as a whole and what it stood for was portrayed as completely evil. And the Rebel Alliance and their aim for a democratic Republic was portrayed as completely good.

I agree that nobody was innocent on the Death Star, but Impediment has a point that the vast majority of them may not have been morally depraved the core even though the SW Universe portrays them as such.

Unless Lucas intended everyone on the Death Star to be analogous to Schutzstaffel, then I think the moral argument Impediment and I had is valid.

It reminds me of that extended scene from the LOTR:TT, where Faramir comments on the dead Haradrim soldier:

"The enemy? His sense of duty was no less than yours, I deem. You wonder what his name is, where he came from. And if he was really evil at heart. What lies or threats led him on this long march from home. If he would not rather have stayed there ... in peace. War will make corpses of us all."

Please open up a new thread on it like I requested if you want to discuss it, thank you.

You heard the man.

Originally posted by Zabrak
think of all the characters, weapons, planets, scenes, lines...all the classic top tier **** that was in the classic films. That's the stuff that's been constantly referenced in pop culture and in conversation since the franchise debuted in '77

there's basically none of that in the prequels. So, less pop culture will spawn off the newer ****, and that means less people will be familiar with star wars. people can't just live off the original three films forever. It's not something that's easy to enjoy like the Beatles catalog or something. Film is entirely different.



Can't agree, many Star Wars elements from the OT are still talked about a lot in reference to the genre. Nothing has really competed with Star Wars except for Star Trek and its a give and take situation with those two. SW owns the EU and perhaps the quality of the movies as well as cartoons/animations/games while ST owns the quantity of movies and the tv programme arena.

Who is going to forget the characters? I won't go into them all but I hardly think that they can be forgotten so easily, with the EU continuing their stories perfectly well. Many still have what you could call 'iconic' status with readily identifiable names and looks.

For weapons think of the lightsaber, a weapon that's still one of the coolest fictional weapons out there - can't think of a sci-fi weapon of its type that puts that into the background. That could be also because swords are more elegant and a perfectly choreographed swordfight can be mesmerising and memorable but even though 'laser swords' have been done in other things (mainly books) I think its still more commonly associated with SW. I'll agree that blasters are bit generic and the only other weapon I can think of is the Thermal Detonator (how powerful are these anyway?) but the lightsaber still rules.

Planets, again, readily identifiable but even more so are the ships; Millenium Falcon, X-Wing, TIE Fighter, Star Destroyer, the Death Star etc. Nothing has replaced these and nothing probably will. Where's the competition? Again you have the ships from Star Trek, they are prominent and they have just as many types and classes of ships that SW has explored through the EU and that hasn't put SW in the shade.

Scenes and lines? No way, as long as someone watches them from any available dvd and like them they will continue to be memorable. Because of the nature of generational catching up there is always going to be scenes or twists that are spoiled but they are spoiled because they are popular and continuously referenced.

Phew, okay Lucas, wheres my cheque for all that loyalty and publicity?

Originally posted by Zabrak
people will lose interest if there's nothing worth being interested in

i can't believe he dropped the ball on the prequels man. another 3 classic star wars films?
wow that would have boosted it's relevancy for another three generations EASILY

think of all the characters, weapons, planets, scenes, lines...all the classic top tier **** that was in the classic films. That's the stuff that's been constantly referenced in pop culture and in conversation since the franchise debuted in '77

there's basically none of that in the prequels. So, less pop culture will spawn off the newer ****, and that means less people will be familiar with star wars. people can't just live off the original three films forever. It's not something that's easy to enjoy like the Beatles catalog or something. Film is entirely different.

God, it's insane. I hope he tries again with three other films, this time with competent top tier directors.

Well, turns out you got your wish.

STAR WARS owns the realm of EU? Are you serious?? Star Trek has done an INCREDIBLE job of maintaining it's continuity (aside from the recent timeline change which still works) while the EU in Star Wars is immensely disjointed. I would say however that Star Wars EU is vastly more entertaining than Star Trek EU.

The prequel trilogy was so boring that I remember almost nothing about it.

You remembered that it was boring. That's a start.

he did say "almost"

yeah man those cooks and outsourced janitors on the death star were pure evil!

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
yeah man those cooks and outsourced janitors on the death star were pure evil!

Wrong thread?

i think the reason nobody made a seperate thread is because nobody really cares whether the locust-men were good or evil. thats what happens when a story lacks compelling villains and replaces them with swarms of cgi cartoons.

So they talk about it here??? Weird

Originally posted by focus4chumps
i think the reason nobody made a seperate thread is because nobody really cares whether the locust-men were good or evil. thats what happens when a story lacks compelling villains and replaces them with swarms of cgi cartoons.


Yeah...kind of like Storm Troopers from the OT.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yeah...kind of like Storm Troopers from the OT.

actually thats nothing even remotely related to cgi cartoons

Originally posted by focus4chumps
actually thats nothing even remotely related to cgi cartoons

Except that it is closely related, of course.

Maybe with the prequel trilogy.

Originally posted by Kazenji
Maybe with the prequel trilogy.

What do you mean, here?

he means you dont know wtf you are talking about

Yeah where in the OT did they use CGI for stormtroopers?......and i don't mean the updated versions.

He does mean the updated versions. ANH's Special Edition multiplied the number of Stormtroopers than Han ran in to, and added to the "Look sir, droids!" troopers. One of the additions I actually liked.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
he means you dont know wtf you are talking about

Then you didn't know what he was talking about.

Originally posted by Kazenji
Yeah where in the OT did they use CGI for stormtroopers?......and i don't mean the updated versions.

I figured that's what you meant and it doesn't make senses in context with my post.

So you're focusing on the irrelevant word "cgi". That is not what my comment was about. I was commenting on the bug-dudes, regardless of their CGI-ness, being just like storm troopers because, "nobody really cares whether the locust-men were good or evil. thats what happens when a story lacks compelling villains and replaces them with ."

I edited that quote because you are obviously hung up on "cgi." Now there is no red-herring for you to get hung-up on.


And so there is no way you can get further confused, here is that same quote rewritten for stormtroopers:

"nobody really cares whether the storm troopers were good or evil. thats what happens when a story lacks compelling villains and replaces them with ."

Originally posted by dadudemon

So you're focusing on the irrelevant word "cgi". That is not what my comment was about

since it was directly comparative to my comment on all-cgi battles, thats exactly what your comment was about.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
since it was directly comparative to my comment on all-cgi battles, thats exactly what your comment was about.

Since I said it wasn't and made it impossible to force that meaning with a lengthy post, that is exactly what it wasn't about.

Also, your comment wasn't about "all-cgi battles": you made another point (the actual main point) in your post that I quoted and used for my point.

You try to hard to make things to argue about.


The PT is better than the OT.

im not interested in continuing to entertain your nonsensical diversion trolling.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The PT is better than the OT. FDzW5FZO2yE

Originally posted by focus4chumps
im not interested in continuing to entertain your nonsensical diversion trolling.



Odd: I thought that was what you were doing.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
FDzW5FZO2yE

I hope that in the afterlife, which you don't believe in, I can understand why you hate the PT so. Maybe then...then....our hearts can understand each other.

Is this a "bites knuckle" moment?

The stormtroopers were supposed to be the massive, conformist face of the empire. They were never treated as the main villains, though, more an aspect of it; or backup for Vader.

I think Lucas tried to recapture that with the battle droids and the clones, it just sort of fell flat.

No idea what that has to do with Star Wars' relevancy, though.

Originally posted by -Pr-

No idea what that has to do with Star Wars' relevancy, though.

you summed it up in one word. "flat".

eps 1 and 2 defined "flat".

generations down the road, new audiences will take the logical route and start at ep1. then halfway through attack of the clones, coincidentally during anakin's "i hate sand" speech, they will likely conclude that its just all so downright god awful.


hence they will miss out on the OT and star wars dies.

That's why If I ever have kids, they'll be watching the OT first.

Don't forget to show them the Holiday Special. They have learn what not to do.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Don't forget to show them the Holiday Special. They have learn what not to do.

That's what the PT is for. But sure, Holiday Special too.

Originally posted by -Pr-
The stormtroopers were supposed to be the massive, conformist face of the empire. They were never treated as the main villains, though, more an aspect of it; or backup for Vader.

I agree: same with the insect men.

Originally posted by -Pr-
I think Lucas tried to recapture that with the battle droids and the clones, it just sort of fell flat.

I don't think he tried to do that with the droids or clones. He made the clones have more "humanness" and even gave them faces. Probably the insect men are the closest thing to the stormtroopers in the OT.

Originally posted by -Pr-
No idea what that has to do with Star Wars' relevancy, though.

The OP was worried about the PT ruining Star Wars and thinks that the OT was massively better. I was pointing out how there are similar elements to each trilogy and that he hate is, again, pretty much unfounded.


Originally posted by -Pr-
That's why If I ever have kids, they'll be watching the OT first.


My kids watched the PT, first. We haven't gotten around to the OT, yet. I look forward to watching it with them.

I don't think the clones were that humanised at all. Sure, we saw their faces, but they were still just cardboard cut-out soldiers that died en-masse during the battle scenes.

Now, the show did a good job of showing more of them. I don't feel like the movies did.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The OP was worried about the PT ruining Star Wars and thinks that the OT was massively better. I was pointing out how there are similar elements to each trilogy and that he hate is, again, pretty much unfounded. Do you actually think they're good movies? Why?

Originally posted by -Pr-
I don't think the clones were that humanised at all. Sure, we saw their faces, but they were still just cardboard cut-out soldiers that died en-masse during the battle scenes.

Far more humanized than stormtroopers and, therefore, do not form a decent parallel.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Do you actually think they're good movies? Why?

Compared to the OT:

Better acting, better story, better effects, better "mythos", more fun, more entertaining, cooler saber duels, cooler force powers, more varied art, n'stuff.


They are better in pretty much every single way than the OT.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Compared to the OT:

Better acting http://kslx.com/files/kslx/styles/large/public/aghast.jpg



What the f*ck...?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
http://kslx.com/files/kslx/styles/large/public/aghast.jpg



What the f*ck...?

Oh man.

cbeR6uYxU50





What is amazing is you or people like you somehow justify that as decent acting that is better than anything Hayden did as Anakin. Just despicable the lengths people will go to defend another reason they like the OT better than the PT.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Far more humanized than stormtroopers and, therefore, do not form a decent parallel.



Compared to the OT:

Better acting, better story, better effects, better "mythos", more fun, more entertaining, cooler saber duels, cooler force powers, more varied art, n'stuff.


They are better in pretty much every single way than the OT.

i don't agree, tbh. There was almost nothing in the PT that was supposed to make us care about the Clones, to me.

Also, without being rude, I have to ask: Are you kidding? Though I seem to recall you saying something similar a ways back, so sadly you might not be. Either way, I honestly don't get how you can claim some of that criteria is true, but that would be going off topic, I think.

Originally posted by dadudemon




Compared to the OT:

Better acting, better story, better effects, better "mythos", more fun, more entertaining, cooler saber duels, cooler force powers, more varied art, n'stuff.


They are better in pretty much every single way than the OT.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg/300px-Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg
Oh the humanity....

Originally posted by dadudemon
Compared to the OT:

Better acting, better story, better effects, better "mythos", more fun, more entertaining, cooler saber duels, cooler force powers, more varied art, n'stuff.


They are better in pretty much every single way than the OT.

I definitely disagree with plot.

The PT trilogy had some issues- Episode 1 didn't follow a single main character. Anakin started out too young so his ep 1 stuff played little into his future growth, and by ep 2 he was already chaffing and already clearly on the way to falling and we never really get to see him as a stand-up hero, so there's basic issues with the arc where we're missing a big chunk of his growth, whereas Luke's arc is very solid start to finish and we get to observe his development and changes. Several plot elements also really only came out after the fact (what was meant by 'balance' / the darkside being imbalance rather than a balance between light and dark. What, in-universe, the reason why there were mass defections from the Republic were. And that the Jedi were supposed to be too detached and hidebound, which no-one in the movies themselves commented on, and considering other characters acted similarly they didn't really stand out. And, very importantly, that the shadow of the force was throwing off their precog! Most of that stuff was talked about a lot in interviews and supplementary material and even the Clone Wars cartoon, but not the movies themselves), and there was no Han Solo figure, that is to say a major non-Jedi protagonist to provide an outside perspective, and Leia was a stronger figure than Padme.

There's a couple minor characterization/theme errors and holes- like in Ep2, Anakin's supposed to be the reckless one, but Obi-wan is the one who grabs an assassin droid and jumps out the window. Dooku should've been around in Ep1 to make it more uncertain who was pulling Maul's strings, Palpy or Dooku. Also, when it's discovered Jango Fett is both a CIS assassin *and* linked to the Clones, you'd think there'd be an investigation, but there isn't. What was really needed was some lines about how Palpatine had Republic intelligence check it out or something- to show that he killed the investigation from within and wasn't simply benefiting from incompetence. Preferably with the Jedi mentioning that it'd be confidence in it being impossible for someone to infiltrate high levels of republic intel due to their senses and have them be sure that, despite the shadow of the dark side that's been muffling their visions, this still applies, show their hideboundness without actually having them be idiots who don't even think to check.

There was also no iconic ship like the Millennium Falcon (Obi-wan + Anakin needed a sweet ride!), and the space battles, a centerpiece of the OT, were a lot lighter and fewer in number in the PT.



Plus in the fights, the PT had faster more modern choreography, but several of them lacked a major element- acting via the fighting. A lot of it was characters striking and being acrobatic for significant amounts of time, without it serving the thematic thrust of the fight, while in the OT when someone was winning or losing, it was very clear by both their actions and their faces whether someone was being desperately pressed, fighting with anger, fighting smartly, etc..



Now, can I do a thing about the flaws in the OT too? Sure, especially RotJ has some problems, but the overall arc is well done and even if you prefer the PT, it is not strictly better in all areas.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Oh man.

cbeR6uYxU50





What is amazing is you or people like you somehow justify that as decent acting that is better than anything Hayden did as Anakin. Just despicable the lengths people will go to defend another reason they like the OT better than the PT.

Don't make me bring up the terrible acting on the 'sand' dialogue (and most of the dialogue from AOTC for that matter..)

I notice that you didnt cite everything else by Hamill in ESB, to suit your argument, which still failed as even this moment was better and more convincing than the sum of all of the acting by Christiansen in the PT.

And the supporting actors too. All of it was superior in OT to PT.

Now it may not have been the actors' fault, most of them were great actors. But maybe the direction or lack of patience in getting the best performance out of them was an issue, but either way you have to be either out of your mind if you think that decent acting by Ewan McGregor, Samuel L Jackson, (and Liam Neeson in the 1st one) and Ian McDiarmid among a terrible pile of awkward recitations of dialogue, stiff unbelievable "expressiveness" was enough to sustain victory over the entirety of the OT...
Maybe it was having to film against blue and green screen whereas the original actors had the benefit of feeding off of a great and well thought out script in addition to context supplying actual sets and backdrops...?

(Although the reactions to things that werent there at the time of fiilming in OT were WAY more convincing thanks to the acting and direction of the OT cast...)
"Thats no moon..."
"Look at the size of that thing"
The Alderaan obliteration scene (Cushing, Fisher etc)
All cockpit reactions in action scenes etc

Now you compare that to Ralph Brown's (and indeed the whole cast involved at that time's) acting escaping the trade federation blockade in the Phantom Menace, and apologise for your trollery.
OT just seemed like better stuff all round and had mythology, whereas PT almost destroyed that imagination capturing mythology. (Midichloreans)

The FX did more with less and still looked more naturalistic and less like a computer game.

And on top of all this: "Jar Jar". End of.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Oh man.

cbeR6uYxU50





What is amazing is you or people like you somehow justify that as decent acting that is better than anything Hayden did as Anakin. Just despicable the lengths people will go to defend another reason they like the OT better than the PT. Lol, ok. You're trolling.


7SqTR0DorSw

McGregor seems to be trying not to laugh himself in that "The gungans will not be easily swayed" bit in TPM.. granted it is a funny sounding line though...

McGregor is one of the few actors that I felt could actually come out of the PT with any real sense of self-respect. That's what happens when you get a critically acclaimed actor, though.

Poor Natalie Portman, on the other hand.

I'd agree with that. Said his part was decent...maybe except for the posted scene above (which was a bit too comedically melodramatic). He did a great Kenobi though overall. Natalie Portman didn't have it easy though: Having to form a 'chemistry' with someone delivering one of the most wooden acting performances in not just Star Wars, but arguably in all of major motion picture scifi...

Yeah. The woman is a phenomenal actress, those scenes with Anakin were just so badly written...

The one scene with Christensen and Portman that I thought was... natural sounding... was their discussion about "the system" on the Naboo island. For about three lines of dialogue it sounded like real people conversation, not forced scripted conversation. Portman's one bit of stammering "th-the trouble is, the people..." little things like that can stand out and make a character sound like a real person. She's a mediocre actress in most of her films, so this isn't exactly praise.

Episode III had some good acting and was more together overall compared to Eps I and II.

Agreed. Though considering it gave people like Palpatine and Windu more scenes, I think that was always going to happen.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Don't make me bring up the terrible acting on the 'sand' dialogue (and most of the dialogue from AOTC for that matter..)


Still better than most of every single line delivered in Episode IV.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
I notice that you didnt cite everything else by Hamill in ESB, to suit your argument, which still failed as even this moment was better and more convincing than the sum of all of the acting by Christiansen in the PT.

If my point was to "cite" every example of atrocious acting, it would take forever. I think everyone here knows how horrible the acting was in the OT without me having to cite every example.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
And the supporting actors too. All of it was superior in OT to PT.

For me, all of it was superior in the PT.


Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Now it may not have been the actors' fault, most of them were great actors. But maybe the direction or lack of patience in getting the best performance out of them was an issue, but either way you have to be either out of your mind if you think that decent acting by Ewan McGregor, Samuel L Jackson, (and Liam Neeson in the 1st one) and Ian McDiarmid among a terrible pile of awkward recitations of dialogue, stiff unbelievable "expressiveness" was enough to sustain victory over the entirety of the OT...

No, the worst of the PT was better than most of the best of the OT when it came to acting. That's how bad the acting is in the OT. I think it is absurd that you and many others won't admit that. Almost anyone else I know that likes the OT over the PT admits to how horrible the acting was in the OT.


Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Maybe it was having to film against blue and green screen whereas the original actors had the benefit of feeding off of a great and well thought out script in addition to context supplying actual sets and backdrops...?

I would agree that some of the acting was wooden in the PT and that may have had something to do with the woodiness of it, lol.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
(Although the reactions to things that werent there at the time of fiilming in OT were WAY more convincing thanks to the acting and direction of the OT cast...)
"Thats no moon..."
"Look at the size of that thing"
The Alderaan obliteration scene (Cushing, Fisher etc)
All cockpit reactions in action scenes etc

I read this section, thrice, to understand what you were trying to say. At first, I thought you were pointing out horrible scenes of acting. But then I thought that you could not possibly be making that point since you are trying to say the acting is better in the OT over the PT. So I read it a second time and then it was obvious that you were pointing out some horrible acting scenes but that did not fit well with the epiphany I had the first time I read it. So I read it a third time...and then I realized you actually think those are great acting moments.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Now you compare that to Ralph Brown's (and indeed the whole cast involved at that time's) acting escaping the trade federation blockade in the Phantom Menace, and apologise for your trollery.

Yeaaaaahhhh....no. That is still better acting than almost all of Episode IV. I mean, really...you don't honestly believe the acting was good, at all, in the OT, do you? Be honest...no games...no posturing...nothing like that. Do you honestly think the acting was good in the OT, at all?

I don't. I think it was, overall, atrocious. The acting in the PT is definitely better. However, overall, it is just passable.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
OT just seemed like better stuff all round and had mythology, whereas PT almost destroyed that imagination capturing mythology. (Midichloreans)

Translation: "I am butthurt over the introduction of the concept of midichloreans so I choose to ignore all the other lore and myth created in the PT."

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
The FX did more with less and still looked more naturalistic and less like a computer game.

I disagree. It was ahead of its time, for sure...but even as a child, it looked hilarious at parts.

For example...ZOMG! DEEZ HAND PUPPETS LOOK SOOOOO REALISTIC!

Did anyone say that? I don't think anyone did.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
And on top of all this: "Jar Jar". End of.

A character I liked and found hilarious. I still do not get the JarJar hate even after multiple people pointed out why they hated him. I think people just say that because it is something they heard a looooong time ago from someone else so it makes them feel better to jump on that wagon.



Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Lol, ok. You're trolling.


7SqTR0DorSw


And the acting in that scene is superior to almost all of Episode IV's acting...which is saying something of the OT's acting.

Originally posted by Q99
Now, can I do a thing about the flaws in the OT too? Sure, especially RotJ has some problems, but the overall arc is well done and even if you prefer the PT, it is not strictly better in all areas.

I disagree, of course. I think the PT is better in almost every single area compared to the OT. Especially the story portion. The OT is so full of plotholes, it is absurd: but we love it not because you have to be a retard to think the plot progression is coherent but because it was fun as hell. The PT suffered less from that...maybe because it was done with more George at the helm?

Originally posted by dadudemon
And the acting in that scene is superior to almost all of Episode IV's acting...which is saying something of the OT's acting. Lol.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Still better than most of every single line delivered in Episode IV.



Phew I thought there was a possibility that you were actually serious til now.. good one you had me going for a while there.
Excellent sardonicism.


Fixed.


Maybe you'll try spinning...thats a good trick....



Well if you no longer wanted to be taken seriously on these boards, thats all you had to say. This elaborate trolling/simulated nervous breakdown was totally unnecessary.




Most of it was. Even the worst of the OT lines looked like Ingmar Bergman's 'The Seventh Seal' next to the PT's average lines and depthless recitals.




The ramblings of a madman. Well we have all seen the PT thrice also. And thats why we know that it is shit compared to OT.


It was better than PT acting.



Most of it was not passable.



Oh, you are? Ok.



And making people laugh intentionally was something that the PT could never achieve.


Yoda looked WAY better as a hand puppet in the OT compared to the abortional monstrosity that was in TPM.
You are obviously blind if you think that the PT didnt look like a FMV CGI part of a video game...


And do you STILL find him hilarious now that you aren't 5, and now that you've seen PT more than 6 times?
You think that about people because you find it easier to thank that than to face the fact that you obviously have no taste.


Yes it says that you've never seen it.

And this is why you no longer have to be regarded as serious. Trollyboy. PT's plotholes are so extensive that for someone to say that, they obviously need to visit Red Letter Media and watch the reviews in order for those points to be made clear to them. Watch the reviews, come back here and tell me you have the same opinion with a straight face.

He's either trolling you (and putting a helluvan effort in to it), or he genuinely believes the PT are good films. Either way it's laugh-worthy.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Phew I thought there was a possibility that you were actually serious til now.. good one you had me going for a while there.
Excellent sardonicism.


Fixed.


Maybe you'll try spinning...thats a good trick....



Well if you no longer wanted to be taken seriously on these boards, thats all you had to say. This elaborate trolling/simulated nervous breakdown was totally unnecessary.




Most of it was. Even the worst of the OT lines looked like Ingmar Bergman's 'The Seventh Seal' next to the PT's average lines and depthless recitals.




The ramblings of a madman. Well we have all seen the PT thrice also. And thats why we know that it is shit compared to OT.


It was better than PT acting.



Most of it was not passable.



Oh, you are? Ok.



And making people laugh intentionally was something that the PT could never achieve.


Yoda looked WAY better as a hand puppet in the OT compared to the abortional monstrosity that was in TPM.
You are obviously blind if you think that the PT didnt look like a FMV CGI part of a video game...


And do you STILL find him hilarious now that you aren't 5, and now that you've seen PT more than 6 times?
You think that about people because you find it easier to thank that than to face the fact that you obviously have no taste.


Yes it says that you've never seen it.

And this is why you no longer have to be regarded as serious. Trollyboy. PT's plotholes are so extensive that for someone to say that, they obviously need to visit Red Letter Media and watch the reviews in order for those points to be made clear to them. Watch the reviews, come back here and tell me you have the same opinion with a straight face.


Oh boy, you've really convinced me that my opinion on which trilogy I like better is factually wrong.


I did not read any of your post. All the points you brought up last time were rubbish, lame, or fail. Just face it: the same reasons you pretend to hate the PT are the same reasons you should hate the OT. You can't have your cake and eat it too. All the same arguments for why you hate the PT can be correctly applied to the OT.


Try me...but without all of the lengthy whining. Give me one point...not a thousand. I'll show you how it can be applied to the OT.





Edit - Lucien, I feel that every last one of you is part of a troll mob. It is simply a troll-meme to hate the PT. It is some massive, weird, hypocritical, and borderline delusional mob thing that I have observed. Lately, it is getting worse and worse. I consider that entire lot, trolls. Trolls of Star Wars. Mostly just children throwing fits that they would have thrown no matter the outcome. Almost all of you were children when you saw the OT for the first time. Children.

I had more time so I can reply to the other stuff:

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Phew I thought there was a possibility that you were actually serious til now.. good one you had me going for a while there.
Excellent sardonicism.

Immature.


Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Fixed.


Immature.


Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Maybe you'll try spinning...thats a good trick....

Immature.



Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Well if you no longer wanted to be taken seriously on these boards, thats all you had to say. This elaborate trolling/simulated nervous breakdown was totally unnecessary.

Yes, being taken "seriously" on these boards is serious business, right? Oh, wait...it's not. Almost all of your post is un-serious immaturity. The break down is when you posted nothing but an immature reply.




Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Most of it was. Even the worst of the OT lines looked like Ingmar Bergman's 'The Seventh Seal' next to the PT's average lines and depthless recitals.

Only some. Your opinion on this matter is poor to me and is definitely hypocritically biased.




Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
The ramblings of a madman. Well we have all seen the PT thrice also. And thats why we know that it is shit compared to OT.

Immature.


Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
It was better than PT acting.

You mean to say that it was better in your hypocritical opinion, to be accurate.



Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Most of it was not passable.

I agree that the OT's acting was mostly not passable. However, we didn't enjoy the OT for the acting, now did we?



Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Oh, you are? Ok.

Immature.



Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
And making people laugh intentionally was something that the PT could never achieve.

And yet, the theater busted up laughing at several parts in all 3 PT films. I believe that state you are in is either denial or you were just being immature, again.


Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Yoda looked WAY better as a hand puppet in the OT compared to the abortional monstrosity that was in TPM.
You are obviously blind if you think that the PT didnt look like a FMV CGI part of a video game...

That's your horrible and disgusting opinion, of course, but it is not a fact. You go ahead and think hand-puppets looked "so convincing", "so real", and "long lasting special effects!" The very topic that you're talking about it just so plain dumb. I mean, really...you're arguing that a friggin' hand puppet is an amazing, long lasting, special effect that still looks "real". This thought...it...painful to endure. I mean, really? Really......?


Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
And do you STILL find him hilarious now that you aren't 5, and now that you've seen PT more than 6 times?
You think that about people because you find it easier to thank that than to face the fact that you obviously have no taste.

I did laugh, a couple of months back, when JarJar got kicked in the nuts by that robot. That's when I rewatched the PT with my kids. Good times. The kids thought it was funny, too. But I love slapstick humor. I still find the 3-Stooges funny.


Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Yes it says that you've never seen it.

Immature.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
And this is why you no longer have to be regarded as serious. Trollyboy. PT's plotholes are so extensive that for someone to say that, they obviously need to visit Red Letter Media and watch the reviews in order for those points to be made clear to them. Watch the reviews, come back here and tell me you have the same opinion with a straight face.

I'm trolling but you're the one that keeps trying to force the idea that I'm not serious when I've held this same position on KMC since 2006 when I first started posting. "OMG, guyz, don't take this guy sewious! He must be trowing, fer sher!" 6+ years later, making the same points, over and over, and you still think it is "trolling"? I mean, I've argued this stuff for pages and pages with Queeq...and you still will pretend it is trolling?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Oh boy, you've really convinced me that my opinion on which trilogy I like better is factually wrong.


I did not read any of your post. All the points you brought up last time were rubbish, lame, or fail. Just face it: the same reasons you pretend to hate the PT are the same reasons you should hate the OT. You can't have your cake and eat it too. All the same arguments for why you hate the PT can be correctly applied to the OT.


Try me...but without all of the lengthy whining. Give me one point...not a thousand. I'll show you how it can be applied to the OT.





Edit - Lucien, I feel that every last one of you is part of a troll mob. It is simply a troll-meme to hate the PT. It is some massive, weird, hypocritical, and borderline delusional mob thing that I have observed. Lately, it is getting worse and worse. I consider that entire lot, trolls. Trolls of Star Wars. Mostly just children throwing fits that they would have thrown no matter the outcome. Almost all of you were children when you saw the OT for the first time. Children.

You don't think there's a level of hypocrisy inherent in saying that, and yet at the same time dissing the OT? Obviously I'm not trying to offend you; I just find it hard to believe that you believe what you believe.

Is it your right to believe it? Sure. Is it right? No, I don't think so.

I don't hate the PT. I have my issues with it, but it's still Star Wars. It will always be special to me.

But I have sat and watched both trilogies, and I find the OT more watchable because it's superior in pacing, acting, writing, directing etc.

At least, how I see it.

I am morbidly curious as to why you think the PT has a better story/mythos, though.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I had more time so I can reply to the other stuff:



Immature.





Immature.




Immature.





Yes, being taken "seriously" on these boards is serious business, right? Oh, wait...it's not. Almost all of your post is un-serious immaturity. The break down is when you posted nothing but an immature reply.






Only some. Your opinion on this matter is poor to me and is definitely hypocritically biased.






Immature.




You mean to say that it was better in your hypocritical opinion, to be accurate.





I agree that the OT's acting was mostly not passable. However, we didn't enjoy the OT for the acting, now did we?





Immature.





And yet, the theater busted up laughing at several parts in all 3 PT films. I believe that state you are in is either denial or you were just being immature, again.




That's your horrible and disgusting opinion, of course, but it is not a fact. You go ahead and think hand-puppets looked "so convincing", "so real", and "long lasting special effects!" The very topic that you're talking about it just so plain dumb. I mean, really...you're arguing that a friggin' hand puppet is an amazing, long lasting, special effect that still looks "real". This thought...it...painful to endure. I mean, really? Really......?




I did laugh, a couple of months back, when JarJar got kicked in the nuts by that robot. That's when I rewatched the PT with my kids. Good times. The kids thought it was funny, too. But I love slapstick humor. I still find the 3-Stooges funny.




Immature.



I'm trolling but you're the one that keeps trying to force the idea that I'm not serious when I've held this same position on KMC since 2006 when I first started posting. "OMG, guyz, don't take this guy sewious! He must be trowing, fer sher!" 6+ years later, making the same points, over and over, and you still think it is "trolling"? I mean, I've argued this stuff for pages and pages with Queeq...and you still will pretend it is trolling?






Its OK DDM.. plenty of people feel down this time of year..
But hang in there, this flip out is indicative of seasonal pressure and the condition that others so heartlessly called 'madness' will pass and the immaturity of your post overall will seem as laughable to you as it does to all of us and soon you'll feel better and you can look back at posts like you're making right now and realise how much progress you will have made.

Views change in the evolving, growing, learning.
Stubborness and rigidity in opinion is not an 'asset' to brag about.

Slapstick works fine.....in slapstick movies.
The OT had slapstick moments but they were subtle, not excruciatingly overdone and would fit better therefore into context of the action and tension of the movie.. The falling toolbox in ESB for example. The audience were seeing it for the 1st time back then. I wonder how many seeing it again would laugh now.. You would, clearly. But like I say, you'll get better.

Ok guys, tone it down. Some of these replies are just becoming pointless.

Fair enough.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Edit - Lucien, I feel that every last one of you is part of a troll mob. It is simply a troll-meme to hate the PT. It is some massive, weird, hypocritical, and borderline delusional mob thing that I have observed. Lately, it is getting worse and worse. I consider that entire lot, trolls. Trolls of Star Wars. Mostly just children throwing fits that they would have thrown no matter the outcome. Almost all of you were children when you saw the OT for the first time. Children. Actually it's part of a collective standard as to what constitutes a bad film. The vast majority of people who've seen them think they're either bad films, bad Star Wars films, or both. So... yes! A mob of like minded people who espouse similar sentiments on this sci-fi slop, preaching their opinion and tastes. Our flag-bearer is Mr. Plinkett.

A brave few stand against us, defending the PT, either out of a love of the underdog (that made billions of $), nostalgic glasses, or a genuine feel that the Star Wars prequels are examples of good films--whatever their definition of 'good' may be. Another member here, The Tempest, I think is the underdog guy, who likes to defy popular convention. You, I think, are the kind who really feel these are good movies.

Warps my fragile little mind, I can tell you.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
You, I think, are the kind who really feel these are good movies. .

That gave me a warm fuzzy. inlove

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Warps my fragile little mind, I can tell you.

I think both trilogies are awesome. When I say that I think the OT is better than the PT, it is not by much.

The OT has its unique charms that the PT could never hope to have. One of them is the late 70s-80s sci-fi charm. Another is the chemistry between actors. Another is the characters: we weren't meant to love Anakin. The only character, I think, that we were meant to love in the PT was Obi Wan and possibly Padme.

Also, IMO, Return of the Jedi has the best story out of all 6 films. It is just plain awesome.

And out of all the actors in all 6 films....NO one can top Harrison Ford. When everyone else is delivering cheesy Highschool level lines, he's tearing it up.

So, yes, I may give many overall nods to the PT over the OT but that's like saying Jessica Biel in Blade III is hotter than Rachel Nichols in GI Joe.


Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Views change in the evolving, growing, learning.
Stubborness and rigidity in opinion is not an 'asset' to brag about.

I think the research shows that personalities don't change too much unless a catastrophic event occurs in a person's life. People's opinions on films usually don't change once they've become adults. There are old men, where I work, whose security question about their favorite movie has been "The Godfather" for 3 decades. So I don't think it is a bad thing that I love the PT andOriginally posted by Sadako of Girth
Slapstick works fine.....in slapstick movies.
The OT had slapstick moments but they were subtle, not excruciatingly overdone and would fit better therefore into context of the action and tension of the movie.. The falling toolbox in ESB for example. The audience were seeing it for the 1st time back then. I wonder how many seeing it again would laugh now.. You would, clearly. But like I say, you'll get better.

I think slapstick can work in movies that are not meant for slapstick...obviously. In fact, it may work better if slapstick humor is used sparingly rather than the main focus. If you watch more than 1 episode of the 3 Stooges, in a row, it gets old. It is best in small doses.

The OT Slapstick moments felt just he same as the PTs. It is part of George Lucas' charm: he's pretty funny, sometimes.

Adults still learn and evolve their views in accordance of the world around them..

Yes he is funny sometimes when he does it subtley. He gave Jar Jar main focus and it didnt work. He diverted from plot in AOTC for 5 mins of sodding around with mixed up head slapstick with C-P30 in the droid factory. It works less with every rewatch.
The OT suffered none of this.
Ergo it is not comparable.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Adults still learn and evolve their views in accordance of the world around them..

But usually not with the movies they consider their all time favorite: I have not run across a single person like that.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Yes he is funny sometimes when he does it subtley. He gave Jar Jar main focus and it didnt work. He diverted from plot in AOTC for 5 mins of sodding around with mixed up head slapstick with C-P30 in the droid factory. It works less with every rewatch.
The OT suffered none of this.
Ergo it is not comparable.

He didn't give JarJar much focus at all. And everything else you said, I disagree with. Neither the OT nor the PT suffered from whatever it is you're tying to say.

I'm personally indifferent to Jar-Jar. I don't hate the guy, but I just don't care either.

Anakin drove me up the wall more than he did by a fair amount.

Jedi is my favourite movie (and no, not because of Ewoks, though I love those guys).

Originally posted by -Pr-
Jedi is my favourite movie (and no, not because of Ewoks, though I love those guys).

There is absolutely nothing wrong with you.

Originally posted by dadudemon
There is absolutely nothing wrong with you.

I like to think so.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But usually not with the movies they consider their all time favorite: I have not run across a single person like that.



He didn't give JarJar much focus at all. And everything else you said, I disagree with. Neither the OT nor the PT suffered from whatever it is you're tying to say.

People get carried away all the time and are like "best movie ever" for like 3 months then time comes to tell apart the classics from the non-classics. People revise their opinions when time for the hype to die down has passed and re watches occur.

I disagree. The pre-dip scene on Naboo's surface, the tongue/powercoupling scene, the underwater kingdom, The poop step in, the slapstick stallsnack scene with Sebulba, the massive slapstick battle against the droids at the end of which, he should have been executed if the droids were following orders ("Wipe the out, all of them" anyone?), even the dinner scene was JarJar focus with the tongue/apple thing...he was thrust upon us in a manner that made him like a juiced up CGI attention wh*re who had to have everybody's attention on him for his slapstickery. And focused slapstickery of that level doesn't belong in Star Wars....not to that degree, anyway.. And the whole factory scene I mentioned was totally unneccesary and slapstick..and the way the 'humour' carried on into a battle where loads of Jedi are getting wiped out and there is the historic 1st deployment of he Republic's clone army...totally irritating on rewatches.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
People get carried away all the time and are like "best movie ever" for like 3 months then time comes to tell apart the classics from the non-classics. People revise their opinions when time for the hype to die down has passed and re watches occur.

I disagree. The pre-dip scene on Naboo's surface, the tongue/powercoupling scene, the underwater kingdom, The poop step in, the slapstick stallsnack scene with Sebulba, the massive slapstick battle against the droids at the end of which, he should have been executed if the droids were following orders ("Wipe the out, all of them" anyone?), even the dinner scene was JarJar focus with the tongue/apple thing...he was thrust upon us in a manner that made him like a juiced up CGI attention wh*re who had to have everybody's attention on him for his slapstickery. And focused slapstickery of that level doesn't belong in Star Wars....not to that degree, anyway.. And the whole factory scene I mentioned was totally unneccesary and slapstick..and the way the 'humour' carried on into a battle where loads of Jedi are getting wiped out and there is the historic 1st deployment of he Republic's clone army...totally irritating on rewatches.

I actually think you touched on a really good point there. That kind of contrasting attitudes in battle scenes where a jedi will be gunned down 10 feet away from threepio and r2d2 arguing, or jar-jar fumbling with a grenade while "presumably" gungans are getting mowed down by the dozens.

In the OT, that was a lot less common. I mean, sure, you'd get threeprio and r2 running across a corridor and avoiding blaster fire, but look at say, the ewoks. They're considered by a lot of people to be Lucas' first pandering to the toys, and yet for the most part, and especially in battle scenes, the ewoks are played very straight. yes, they use rocks and arrows, but that's because they're not advanced, not because it's funny. though there was the bit with the bola-throwing, but even then, that's an outlier rather than indicative of a theme.

hell, even that moment where the ewok gets gunned down, and the camera actually hangs on his/her friend as he/she mourns him. that was one of the saddest parts of the trilogy for me as a kid, and even watching it again, you can just hear the director screaming at you "look; these little fuzzy bears are getting straight up murdered! this is an actual fight for freedom and survival".

You can pick apart the prequels for all the technical failings, plot consistencies, and lousy dialogue... but generally speaking they fail to connect with people, and that's the main problem. They lack an emotional connection with the audience.

Yep. III does a better job as things largely speaking are better and the tone is more decent Star Wars level, and the forced goofery is left to the stupid squeaky battledroids. "But 1 Half involving movie does not a great trilogy make" OT wins.

I liked the darker tone of RotS--the darkest the OT got was the Emperor's throne room. But dark tone or no, I was just soooo bored. The characters are incredibly unlikeable (Palpatine excepted). You can have all the dark seriousness you want, if the characters and story are despicable/retarded, then I don't care and my interest is nil.

That said I was disappointed they didn't show more butchery in the temple. I mean if you're gonna go dark, just go balls to the walls with it.

But Hayden was trying to look very dark... wasn't that enough? ;-)

His acting sure was dark to me... I still don't get it. ;-)

Originally posted by dadudemon


I disagree, of course. I think the PT is better in almost every single area compared to the OT. Especially the story portion. The OT is so full of plotholes, it is absurd: but we love it not because you have to be a retard to think the plot progression is coherent but because it was fun as hell. The PT suffered less from that...maybe because it was done with more George at the helm?

I definitely feel the PT had bigger plot holes.


Why did no-one follow up on the clone army? Or find it suspicious that the seed of the Republic's army is a merc known to work for the CIS?

What was in the prophecy of the chosen one? Why was bringing balance to the force a good thing when there were so many more jedi? ("Light = balance, dark = imbalance" being something *never* mentioned in the movies).

Why did Anakin never go back for his mom or if that wasn't allowed, have it addressed that it wasn't allowed?


I mean, interviews have filled in some stuff, but some of those are pretty big, I'm not sure what in the OT is supposed to be on that level.


Other more minor ones include, why couldn't any of the Jedi foresee what was coming or sense Palpatine? (Shadow of the darkside/wound in the force blocking precog, again never mentioned in movie) And how did the Jedi know that 'always two there are'?


There's a lot of stuff that was on the cutting room floor that should've been in.

Originally posted by Q99
(Shadow of the darkside/wound in the force blocking precog, again never mentioned in movie)

Sorry, but whilst GL was sloppy on some of those details, that one is explicitly addressed in TPM and revisited in AOTC.

Originally posted by Q99
I definitely feel the PT had bigger plot holes.


Why did no-one follow up on the clone army?

Someone did and his name was Obi Wan.

Originally posted by Q99
Or find it suspicious that the seed of the Republic's army is a merc known to work for the CIS?

Actually, the template was a Galactically renowed bounty hunter and no one knew whether or not if he worked closely with Confederacy of Independent Systems. That was part of the point of a "secret" clone army. And it was made quite clear that Sidious was working this entire project from the shadows as part of his overall plan to "rule it all".

Originally posted by Q99
What was in the prophecy of the chosen one?

You answer it in the next sentence.

Originally posted by Q99
Why was bringing balance to the force a good thing when there were so many more jedi? ("Light = balance, dark = imbalance" being something *never* mentioned in the movies).
That's a forced contradiction. Ushgarak has all but smashed that line of reasoning. What it boils down to is what you, yourself, want the word "balance" to mean versus what George wanted it to mean. That is not a "plothole": that is you forcing a problem where no problem exists.

Originally posted by Q99
Why did Anakin never go back for his mom or if that wasn't allowed, have it addressed that it wasn't allowed?

It was quite clearly addressed: "attachments" are supposed to be disposed of when becoming a Jedi. Additionally, Schmi told Anakin to let go of her, his life was elsewhere, and her life was on Tatooine. He promised he would come back and free her. Next, Schmi was freed, eventually, by Cliegg Lars so there was no reason to go back to free her until she was in danger (as far as "sensing problems through the force with his mother" was concerned). It wasn't until his "force nightmares" that he got the prompt to break the Jedi Code and go back to his mother. His trip there was a "secret"...and part of his downfall. It was pretty dang important stuff to his fall and to miss that is to miss pretty much the entire purpose of Vader's downfall. It was directly foreshadowed in the first film and realized in the second film. On this point, it is not anywhere close to being a plothole.


Originally posted by Q99
I mean, interviews have filled in some stuff, but some of those are pretty big, I'm not sure what in the OT is supposed to be on that level.

I feel the OT is worse, actually. So, if by level, you mean a lower level of errors, I agree. But I know that is not what you meant.


Originally posted by Q99
Other more minor ones include, why couldn't any of the Jedi foresee what was coming or sense Palpatine? (Shadow of the darkside/wound in the force blocking precog, again never mentioned in movie) And how did the Jedi know that 'always two there are'?

Well...the ability to farsee was being limited by Palpatine: that was stated in Episode III. Palpatine was that powerful. But they could sense the dark side: most of them did. They were scared/disturbed by it.

And why would they not know about an "ancient religion" that had been around for thousands of years, again? Of course they are going to know that the Sith worked in pairs. Yes, we know it is considered a "religion" because of the OT and because of what Palps said in the PT. You don't have to delve into the EU to explanations for how the Sith work.





But if you want some massive plotholes from the OT, let us talk about only ANH:

Luke retained the last name "Skywalker". Leia was not hidden away, at all, and, instead, kept out in the open as a Princess. Any force sensitive would detect that the force was strong with her: two very dumb and major plotholes. Here is why those two are plotholes: how did Leia avoid detection for all her life while being a major public figure? How did Luke avoid detection while living on his father's home world and while retaining his father's surname? Even worse...Luke was sent to live with his "Step-family".

Why did the Death Star have to circle around a planet to destroy a planet in the first film? Would not it have been much faster to just destroy that planet and then shoot the "secret" rebel base? The entire end of the film directly revolves around the idea that the Empire is so incompetent that it cannot think to blast through planets to quickly kill a rebel base before they have time to scramble their fighters.

Why didn't Leia's ship, at the beginning of ANH jump to hyperspace? It was never explained why their hyperdrive did not work. That is a very basic/classic plothole.

If Obi Wan is in hiding, why would he use the only weapon that definitely would pinpoint him as Jedi (his lightsber in the bar)? Even if he was not a Jedi, it would still raise suspicions to even use it...so why did he risk it? That is not explained in the films but we can guess it was due to him knowing that this was his last mission...but we should not have to write the story.

Why is the Emperor or Vader not able to see any of the events that happen in ANH that do not work in their favor? Luke, Leia, Obi Wan, and Yoda are never said to have the "block farseeing" ability that Palps did in the PT. In fact, this is such a major plothole that it makes the entire OT a giant story mess.

The Death Star can move at superluminal speeds...because it travels from one star system to another. So why did it take so long to maneuver around a planet? Why would they even drop out of hyperspace in such an dis-advantageous position? Space is not 2D: there is "up" and "down".


Oh, and another: why was Leia's ship NOT just traveling down from their pursuers rather than in a straight line? Is space really so flat that you cannot flee down? Where is the explanation for this?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Luke retained the last name "Skywalker". Leia was not hidden away, at all, and, instead, kept out in the open as a Princess. Any force sensitive would detect that the force was strong with her: two very dumb and major plotholes. Here is why those two are plotholes: how did Leia avoid detection for all her life while being a major public figure? How did Luke avoid detection while living on his father's home world and while retaining his father's surname? Even worse...Luke was sent to live with his "Step-family".


Again, in fairness, you are pointing out a PT plot hole there, not an OT one. Those elements were introduced in the PT.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Again, in fairness, you are pointing out a PT plot hole there, not an OT one. Those elements were introduced in the PT.

Those are definitely not PT plotholes.


It was revealed that Darth Vader was Anakin Skywalker in ESB when Darth Vader said he was Luke's father. Then that made Luke Skywalker's presence on Tatooine, and his name, and his family, all become suspect.

The only relevance those massive plotholes have with the PT is the relationship Anakin Skywalker had with the Lars family...which was fleshed out in the PT.

When Leia was revealed to be Luke's sister in RotJ, her title and public-ness made her running around (in a New Hope) without doubt/condemnation from the Emperor seem crazy. Again, that does not require anything from the PT to realize that it is an absurd plothole.

Sorry, but they ARE PT plotholes. Tatooine was the arse-end of nowhere in ANH, a great place to hide, with Luke's name being pretty irrelevant if no-one knows who is there at all. It only became the first place Vader would look when it turned out to be his homeworld in TPM. As soon as Vader DID hear about Luke, then he knew.

You are also making a tremendous assumption that people with the Force can be sensed, which is not actually backed by anything from the films. That is no form of plothole, it is just you making problems up.

Much of your list is actually very weak. Like the others, I concur with the exceptionally clear status of the PT having much larger plot issues than the simpler OT.

http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-wars/star-wars-episode-1-the-phantom-menace/

http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-wars/star-wars-episode-ii-attack-of-the-clones/

http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-wars/star-wars-episode-iii-revenge-of-the-sith/

DDM Check these out. Would like to hear what you think of the many many plotholes and general dumbassery that pervaded the prequels, as listed within. No Star Wars fan should miss these, as I think that you have. Happy holidays.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Sorry, but they ARE PT plotholes. Tatooine was the arse-end of nowhere in ANH, a great place to hide, with Luke's name being pretty irrelevant if no-one knows who is there at all. It only became the first place Vader would look when it turned out to be his homeworld in TPM. As soon as Vader DID hear about Luke, then he knew.

I do concede the Tatooine portion, but that is not actually the main point, here. The point is, Luke Skywalker is hanging around, is a force sensitive, Leia is hanging around as a major public figure, and is a force sensitive. However, Tatooine is the HQ of one of the biggest Crimelords in the Galaxy: Jabba. It is hardly inconspicuous.

Where was the Emperor's far seeing abilities with Luke and Leia?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
You are also making a tremendous assumption that people with the Force can be sensed, which is not actually backed by anything from the films. That is no form of plothole, it is just you making problems up.

But...but....people that are strong in the force can be sensed as established by ANH when Vader sensed that the force was strong with Luke Skywalker.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Much of your list is actually very weak. Like the others, I concur with the exceptionally clear status of the PT having much larger plot issues than the simpler OT.

I consider each and every point to be very strong, personally.


Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-wars/star-wars-episode-1-the-phantom-menace/

http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-wars/star-wars-episode-ii-attack-of-the-clones/

http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-wars/star-wars-episode-iii-revenge-of-the-sith/

DDM Check these out.

No thank you.

But it would be okay if you listed a few plotholes from one film. I'd respond to your posts.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But...but....people that are strong in the force can be sensed as established by ANH when Vader sensed that the force was strong with Luke Skywalker..

No they cannot- Vader's comment is in respect to Luke's constant dodging of his fire (and probably has nothing to do with power in the FOrce at all, seeing as proverbs about the Force are used as a proxy for 'good luck' comments in the films. When Dodonna says 'May the Force be with you', he's not implying all the rebel pilots are Force users). Vader was feet away from Luke earlier in the film and sensed nothing. At no point has any force user simply 'sensed' that someone else is strong in the Force. A lot of fans assume it, for no good reason, but it's not in the plot.

You are also making tremendous, Dune-esque assumptions about the predictive and sensing strength of the Force. In fact, these things are shown to be pretty limited in the films, as the 'I find your lack of faith disturbing' scene points out. The Emperor doesn't even predict or sense that Luke is on Endor, and he's top tier power level. These things are always vague and partial.

That Jabba lives in the arse-end of nowhere is neither here nor there. No-one is looking for anyone that far out. Vader doesn't even known he's meant to be looking. On Tatooine, Luke was invisible.

Most of the rest of you points are absurd stylistic nitpicks or irrelevancies. It's a very weak case that will convince no-one. The biggest OT plothole is how Han got to Bespin, and it's not a particularly important one.

I also think ROTJ ha a total plot failure with the interaction between the Rebel Fleet's and Luke's plotlines, but that's not a hole, just poor storytelling.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
No they cannot- Vader's comment is in respect to Luke's constant dodging of his fire. He was feet away from Luke earlier in the film and sensed nothing,. At no point has any force user simply 'sensed' that someone else is strong in the Force.

I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of what happened in the trench.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
You are also making tremendous, Dune-esque assumptions about the predictive and sensing strength of the Force. In fact, these things are shown to be pretty limited in the films, as the 'I find your lack of faith disturbing' scene points out. The Emperor doesn't even predict or sense that Luke is on Endor, and he's top tier power level. These things are always vague and partial.

I disagree, here, as well. Luke was able to farsee his peeps in danger/trapped in fairly spot-on detail when he was being taught how to do it by Yoda. Only if you delve into the PT do you get the type of description of farseeing that you describe. Basically, the PT, yet again, saves the day in fixing some of the plotholes in the OT.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
That Jabba lives in the arse-end of nowhere is neither here nor there.

I agree. But it is a pretty big deal that Luke was on a highly visible planet for almost 2 decades, unscathed, unnoticed, and unmolested by the Emperor and Vader. Especially if you consider that Vader, supposedly, scoured the galaxy for force users and force sensitives and wiped them out. Or am I remembering something from the EU?


Originally posted by Ushgarak
No-one is looking for anyone that far out. Vader doesn't even known he's meant to be looking. On Tatooine, Luke was invisible.

So when did Vader learn that Luke was his son? That's a plothole, as well. And Luke was not invisible on Tatooine.: bullseyeing womp rats in a T-16 speeder is fancy stuff, imo.


Originally posted by Ushgarak
Most of the rest of you points are absurd stylistic nitpicks or irrelevancies.

I disagree, here, as well: they represent massive plotholes that really throw off the story in ANH.

Basically, Luke Skywalker is an anomaly in ANH. He creates many problems for ANH, in my eyes, after ESB.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
It's a very weak case that will convince no-one. The biggest OT plothole is how Han got to Bespin, and it's not a particularly important one.

I definitely do not think I can ever convince any of these PT-haters that their hate is hypocritical. Or rather, I don't think they'd admit it, here. But they will at least read the points and go "aha" and know that the OT is hardly this holy grail of perfection.

How Han got to Bespin can be explained by a "3-month" gap rather than a couple of days gap that it seems. But that is writing story to make things work that was not seen on screen...or necessarily implied: something that is generally makes that a "plothole".

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I also think ROTJ ha a total plot failure with the interaction between the Rebel Fleet's and Luke's plotlines, but that's not a hole, just poor storytelling.

You'd have to flesh that point out some more.

Well, I have no respect at all for your disagreement about the trench run scene, especially as it runs contrary to other things we see, so that just adds to my general dismissal for your entire viewpoint espoused here. The same thing goes for you using one single vague, semi-accurate vision of Luke's to try and go against the multiple times we learn that the Force isn't very precise- including as noted, a scene whose purpose is to makes this clear. Your analysis is not very good, and you just make things up to support yourself.

When did Vader learn that Luke was his son? Err, how about when the new Rebel hero Luke SKYWALKER was being celebrated, and turns out to be that person Obi-Wan was with?

Vader scouring the galaxy like you say is not in the films.

You calling the fact that GL wanted a 2-d type space environment for dramatic purposes a 'massive plothole' runs my contempt levels still higher.

You can look for my earlier posts on ROTJ if you want that detail. In any case, your intransigent nature here makes this argument pointless- it is so absurd, it seems to be trolling to me. We're off-topic, so it is time to get back to it.

I don't want threads opened about the subject either, as they would serve no useful purpose as the issue is so tremendously one-sided and not really a relevant debate.