How about NOT posting in HTML???
That would be a good change.
""Guest"" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:coEOc.2579$***@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
"Rob McCartney" <***@comcast.net> wrote in message news:OPSdnc7Gn7HNZJfcRVn-***@comcast.com...
""Guest"" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:temOc.3623$***@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com...
If what we have seen on the net is indeed true about the additions or
remaking of the originals, then we have been duped. Not only will we not
get the originals, we will get remakes.
Well, that's what they are, remakes...it's been long established that the
"Original Trilogy" will NEVER be seen again, while this does indeed suck Jar
Jar's Nuts, we have to accept it.
Lucas said that with III, all six films will fit together. I actually do
not want that. Why putting Anakin in the end of Jedi? Not only does this
not makes sense given the fact that Christiansen probably was not even alive
when Empire came out, they also make him younger than Kenobi. Makes no
sense.
They're Lucas' films, for better or for worse, if he wants them to fit
together, again, what choice do we have but to accept it or ignore it?
Anakin has always been at the end of Jedi, albeit a different actor back in
1983, but why would Hayden need to have been alive in '83 for him to
continue to be Anakin in '04?
Because when the film comes out and the year of release says 1983, not only
is thsi guy too young to have looked the same back then, future generations
will start asking questions... Have you ever seen a movie featuring someone
who is grown but was probably not alive when it was filmed?
This makes no sense at all. Hayden is Anakin Skywalker, is actually does
make sense for him to reprise the role for the "re-edited" JEDI.
No. Let Shaw keep his little screen time. That is the only Anakin any of
the Star Wars fans ever knew and it should remain that way. Not only
because of the age thing, but because it made sense the first time around
and an older Anakin is more plausable then a young one who looks younger
then his own grown son!
These changes not only change the original vision of the originals, they
also tell a lie. Lucas did not make the prequels fit into the others well,
he changed the others to fit the prequels which means that he either messed
up or his original story was not all together planned well.
Not exactly true, Episode II showed the origins of many things seen in the
Original Trilolgy, for example, the rise of Palpatine/Sideous, the beginning
of the end of The Old Republic, the creation of the Imperial Army (the Clone
Army), the origins of Darth Vader (Anakin's journey towards the Dark Side),
the marriage of Anakin/Amidala (Luke & Leia's parents), early Star
Destroyers (the Republic Transports), early AT-ATs (those walkers during the
war), and a host of other things that clearly evolve into the Star Wars we
grew up with...I think it bridges the gap and answers questions just
fine....now Episode III will answer them all. You don't have to like it, but
you do have to accept it, Lucas will not make the movies you envisioned in
your head since 1983, he'll make the movies he has in his head.
I think he tried a little too hard to make them fit. He should not have
changed the technology as much given the fact that we never saw any of this
technology in the others. There should have been some left over.
Lucas isn't necessarily "changing" the Original Trilogy storyline, he's
making changes to the APPEARANCE of the Trilogy to match the Prequel
Trilogy, there's a big difference.
Changing the appearance is to be expected since those films are 20+ years
old. I welcome the clean up and updates. However, when you put in actors
and characters who were never in the film to begin with, you are changing
the story. A young Anakin changes the story. The EBS scene with Vader and
the emperor changes the story. Although the new emperor s impressive, it
was not the origianl vision as they changed him for Jedi anyway.
The only "change" to the overall story that was made by the Special Editions
was Greedo shooting first, which is a big mistake on oh so many levels. This
changes who Han is...and he shouldn't have done that, but everything else in
the story remains the same, the IMAGES have been changed and updated, that's
not the same.
I agree, but it did not bother me as much as the additon of what was not.
Like the silly droid in ANH. The 1st one I thought, was the most graphic
one to me. Buring bodies, attacks by desrt creatures, that was dumbed down
with those stupid droids. As a child, I like the seriousness of it. I
never wanted to see a kiddie movie. That is why not many like the Ewoks.
The originals had a separate feel, look and logo. I liked that. They
seemed like films that could stand on their own. There was no need for him
to visually connect anything as we already know that they are connected. He
should have left Naboo in the prequels as place that was destroyed when the
empire came along. We did not see Naboo in the others then, so we don't
need to see them now.
The Original Trilogy "feel" is something out of the '70s and '80s, this is
the 21st century, of COURSE it's going to "feel" different,
No, I am not talking age, I am talking about each film having it's
individuality. These new ones have the same logo and have a 'too be
continued' feel to them. Not to mention the acting sucks. The others had
individuality. When each film came out, each logo and theme made them cool,
not to mention each having a different director.
it's a whole different era of filmmaking!
I don't even want to get into the lazy way of using digital effects when you
don't have to...
Again, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. It's juvenile to
think that a series of movie over the course of 25 years should ALL have the
exact same "feel".
I guess you must have read it wrong. Those films NOT have the same feel is
what I liked about them. The characters actually had different clothes.
Clothes that did not look alike. The new ones not only are designed to go
togehter, they look like it. The others you new they went together, but
they had individuality. That is something that films like the Matrix and
even The Lord of the Rings did not have.
EMPIRE felt different than STAR WARS, and JEDI was a Muppet Movie, so even
back then they were all different. As for a different logo...all three of
the Originals had different logos,
I liked that.
at least these three Prequels have the same "feel" about them.
I don't like that. I was looking forward to seeing new logos. To see the
same logo sucks. EP 1 logo was cool because it was. I was expecting
something else for ATOC.
We were visually shown the connections in the Originals, now we're being
shown the things in the Prequels that were discussed in the Originals, it
helps "bind the Galaxy together".
That's cool, but we don't need them to be bound together as we already know
that they are together. After all, the are called Star Wars. Just let the
originals be the way they were and the new ones be the way they are.
Naboo is a fairly important plot point, why not show it?
Not in the originals. Not a mention of Naboo.
It is where Luke & Leia's mother is from, it's also where the Emperor came
from. I'd say it's vitally important to understand these things to better
appreciate them later on (in the Originals).
Right, vital in THE PREQUELS! It is not vital in the originals asmost
character (Han as an example) could care less about an empire. He was
raised into it.
And of course we didn't see Naboo in the Originals, while there's no
mention of it being destroyed, there's no reason to go there any more since
Luke's mother is dead and the Emperor is roaming around on Death Stars.
That's what Lucas should have done, leave SOME things to our imagination.
Let us think Naboo was destroyed or what have you. There is not need to
explain everything. Later for Naboo...
There is also the question of the 20 year(?) gap from III to IV. With that,
how can they fit perfectly? Why should they?
The Prequels deal with the rise of Palpatine's power to eventually become
the Emperor and of Anakin's fall from grace to become Darth Vader, the
Originals deal with the fall of the Emperors power (and the Empire) and
Anakin's redemption, why do we need to see the intervening 15-20 years?
I did not write that we needed to see it. I wrote how can they connect
perfectly with each other with such a gap. Maybe I am thinking when he says
that, that he may mean Leia getting away with the Death Star plans. It
seems clear to me that he will show some rebel getting those plans. I hope
not. That does not have to be shown given the fact that that event can take
place 15 years into the future!
Nothing happens that we don't already know. We know the Emperor takes
control of the Galaxy with Vader's help and we know Luke & Leia need to grow
up, we don't need to see them as kids playing with droids to know that these
things happen, joining the story where the tide turns is all that matters.
You're obviously upset at Lucas for making 3 more films that don't jibe with
your 20 year imagination of what they
No, I was happy to finally see more Star Wars. I, like everyone else just
expect sequels, not prequels. You have to admit, that last scene in Jedi
did not leave much to the imagination. Also, the emperor may have died, but
his vast forces were still out there.
could be (since he's been talking about making them for 20 years before
1999) so stick with the Originals, they're not going anywhere, the VHS tapes
and Laserdiscs
I had them on laserdics in the early 1990's, but sold them after I taped
them on my S-VHS VCR. I would like them on DVD. I probably would have
bought a special edition remake too.
won't stop working when the Tampered Trilogy comes to DVD in September or
when Episode III: Revenge Of The Sith (great title, BTW) comes in May 2005,
the world will go on. Continue to enjoy them and ignore the things that come
out in the future that will spoil that fun. And in the end; They're only
movies....
