Disney Bought Star Wars - Armor Games Community

56	19287

offline

Maverick4

6,800 posts

Peasant

Posted November 4, '12 9:41pm UTC

In that speech he speaks out against the alteration of movies in order to preserve them. Go read the speech and article with it, think about what he's done to his movies and tell me that he is not a hypocrite.

He's actually speaking out against people altering and releasing movies that they originally had no part in. George Lucas owned Starwars at that time; they were his movies. He can thus do whatever he wants with them.

It'd be the same if my neighbor's dog kept crapping in my yard. It's perfectly a ceptable for me to get mad, and tell my neighbor to keep his dog out of my yard. But it's also perfectly acceptable for my dog to crap in my yard, because its my dog and yard.

Remember, you were the one to bring up age. I'd not even alluded to it once before you did. You just simply assumed I was using my perceived older age as a cudgel in the argument.

You gotta be kidding me. Let's go back a page, shall we, and look at the comment that started this. You say I don't have enough experience, and thus aren't worth arguing with. How is experience gained? Age. Not enough experience means I'm not old enough to have the "necessary" experience. That you would use such a claim as an argument means that it was you who sparked this all.

[quote]In that speech he speaks out against the alteration of movies in order to preserve them. Go read the speech and article with it, think about what he's done to his movies and tell me that he is not a hypocrite.\r\n[/quote]\r\n\r\nHe's actually speaking out against people altering and releasing movies that they originally had no part in. George Lucas owned Starwars at that time; they were his movies. He can thus do whatever he wants with them.\r\n\r\nIt'd be the same if my neighbor's dog kept crapping in my yard. It's perfectly a ceptable for me to get mad, and tell my neighbor to keep his dog out of my yard. But it's also perfectly acceptable for my dog to crap in my yard, [i]because its my dog and yard.[/i]\r\n\r\n[quote]Remember, you were the one to bring up age. I'd not even alluded to it once before you did. You just simply assumed I was using my perceived older age as a cudgel in the argument.[/quote]\r\n\r\nYou gotta be kidding me. Let's go back a page, shall we, and look at the comment that started this. You say I don't have enough experience, and thus aren't worth arguing with. How is experience gained? Age. Not enough experience means I'm not old enough to have the "necessary" experience. That you would use such a claim as an argument means that it was you who sparked this all.

offline

Devoidless

3,675 posts

Jester

Posted November 5, '12 12:07am UTC

To begin: http://savestarwars.com/lucasspeechagainstspecialedition.html

He's actually speaking out against people altering and releasing movies that they originally had no part in. George Lucas owned Starwars at that time; they were his movies. He can thus do whatever he wants with them.

"These current defacements are just the beginning. Today, engineers with their computers can add color to black-and-white movies, change the soundtrack, speed up the pace, and add or subtract material to the philosophical tastes of the copyright holder. Tommorrow, more advanced technology will be able to replace actors with "fresher faces," or alter dialogue and change the movement of the actor's lips to match. It will soon be possible to create a new "original" negative with whatever changes or alterations the copyright holder of the moment desires. The copyright holders, so far, have not been completely diligent in preserving the original negatives of films they control. In order to reconstruct old negatives, many archivists have had to go to Eastern bloc countries where American films have been better preserved.

In the future it will become even easier for old negatives to become lost and be "replaced" by new altered negatives. This would be a great loss to our society. Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten."
Still sounds like hypocrisy to the max especially when he is essentially bearing a stone in one hand, a piece of bread in the other. Within the same speech to a certain degree.

You gotta be kidding me. Let's go back a page, shall we, and look at the comment that started this. You say I don't have enough experience, and thus aren't worth arguing with. How is experience gained? Age.

And you continue to play the age card, simply because you are convinced that age was my original meaning behind what I said! It only proves that you think in your mind that age is everything. Someone whom is older -must- be wiser and have more experience. Which is not always the case. Hell, I'd almost sorry that is often not the case.
Living in a college town, I've had to deal with kids that were easily four or five (if not more) years older than myself. Yet because they were simply older than I did not mean they had more experience in the real world. These were twenty-somethings that had never been out of direct control and influence from mommy and daddy until very recently. Or at least they thought they were out of that net (while purchasing everything with daddy's unlimited business card and driving away in the vehicle purchased for them). These were dullwits and children, no questions asked. They had no real world experience at all and it oozed from their every motion and dripped from each word they said.

Yet that's not the point up for debate right now.

To begin: [url=http://savestarwars.com/lucasspeechagainstspecialedition.html]http://savestarwars.com/lucasspeechagainstspecialedition.html[/url]\r\n[quote]He's actually speaking out against people altering and releasing movies that they originally had no part in. George Lucas owned Starwars at that time; they were his movies. He can thus do whatever he wants with them.[/quote]\r\n"These current defacements are just the beginning. Today, engineers with their computers can add color to black-and-white movies, change the soundtrack, speed up the pace, and add or subtract material to the philosophical tastes of the copyright holder. Tommorrow, more advanced technology will be able to replace actors with "fresher faces," or alter dialogue and change the movement of the actor's lips to match. It will soon be possible to create a new "original" negative with whatever changes or alterations the copyright holder of the moment desires. The copyright holders, so far, have not been completely diligent in preserving the original negatives of films they control. In order to reconstruct old negatives, many archivists have had to go to Eastern bloc countries where American films have been better preserved.\r\n\r\nIn the future it will become even easier for old negatives to become lost and be "replaced" by new altered negatives. This would be a great loss to our society. Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten."\r\nStill sounds like hypocrisy to the max especially when he is essentially bearing a stone in one hand, a piece of bread in the other. Within the same speech to a certain degree.\r\n\r\n[quote]You gotta be kidding me. Let's go back a page, shall we, and look at the comment that started this. You say I don't have enough experience, and thus aren't worth arguing with. How is experience gained? Age. [/quote]\r\nAnd you continue to play the age card, simply because you are convinced that age was my original meaning behind what I said! It only proves that you think in your mind that age is everything. Someone whom is older -must- be wiser and have more experience. Which is not always the case. Hell, I'd almost sorry that is often not the case. \r\nLiving in a college town, I've had to deal with kids that were easily four or five (if not more) years older than myself. Yet because they were simply older than I did not mean they had more experience in the real world.  These were twenty-somethings that had never been out of direct control and influence from mommy and daddy until very recently. Or at least they thought they were out of that net (while purchasing everything with daddy's unlimited business card and driving away in the vehicle purchased for them). These were dullwits and children, no questions asked. They had no real world experience at all and it oozed from their every motion and dripped from each word they said. \r\n\r\nYet that's not the point up for debate right now.

offline

Chemical_

26 posts

Nomad

Posted November 5, '12 12:37am UTC

star wars was originally filmed in africa...
-Chemi

offline

Kasic

5,552 posts

Jester

Posted November 5, '12 1:03am UTC

I'm not interested enough in the topic to read these meager 5 pages, but I did find this video. If it's already somewhere in the thread...sorry.

I did glance over some posts though and I have this to say.

Why is everyone getting so worked up about it? Who cares if Disney is trying to make money? They're a business. If what they make with it isn't decent, they'll simply lose money. If what they make is good, great!

P.S, no, the 'first' 3 Star Wars movies are not 'better' than episodes 1-3. They're all similar in my opinion in terms of story, except 1-3 have good sfx and not as much crappy acting.

offline

pangtongshu

9,808 posts

Jester

Posted November 5, '12 1:04am UTC

star wars was originally filmed in africa...
-Chemi

This...has nothing to do with the topic on hand...which devoid and I are winning =p (sorry devoid...goin to piggyback on your hard work here haha if need be though...I can start breaking down random parts of the atrocities to show why they were terrible movies..)

offline

Maverick4

6,800 posts

Peasant

Posted November 5, '12 1:59am UTC

I can copy and paste too:

"People who alter or destroy works of art and our cultural heritage for profit or as an exercise of power are barbarians..."

So in conclusion, George Lucas is a Communist because he hates profit. You are ignoring in the entirety the context with which the speech was given. As I and the article state, the speech was delivered to congress to protect filmmakers from individuals violating copyrights and altering works for their own gain. George Lucas made Star Wars; the movies are his. As his property, he can do what ever he wants with them. Further more, he has an obligation to his employees, investors, and shareholders to make money. And to that end, he can do whatever he wants with his movies.

Look, if I look out my window and say it's sunny, and then two weeks later you look out yours and see that it's raining, does that make me a liar? No, because what may be true at one time may not be true at another. Like wise, what is relevant in the 80's may not be the same when looked at from the 90's.

Living in a college town, I've had to deal with kids that were easily four or five (if not more) years older than myself. Yet because they were simply older than I did not mean they had more experience in the real world. These were twenty-somethings that had never been out of direct control and influence from mommy and daddy until very recently. Or at least they thought they were out of that net (while purchasing everything with daddy's unlimited business card and driving away in the vehicle purchased for them). These were dullwits and children, no questions asked. They had no real world experience at all and it oozed from their every motion and dripped from each word they said.

The greatest irony of all of this, is that you act flabbergasted that George Lucas supposedly broke his promises.

Yet that's not the point up for debate right now.

So then why would you make it in the first place?

I can copy and paste too:\r\n\r\n"People who alter or destroy works of art and our cultural heritage for profit or as an exercise of power are barbarians..."\r\n\r\nSo in conclusion, George Lucas is a Communist because he hates profit. You are ignoring in the entirety the context with which the speech was given. As I and the article state, the speech was delivered to congress to protect filmmakers from individuals violating copyrights and altering works for their own gain. George Lucas made Star Wars; the movies are his. As his property, he can do what ever he wants with them. Further more, he has an obligation to his employees, investors, and shareholders to make money. And to that end, he can do whatever he wants with his movies.\r\n\r\nLook, if I look out my window and say it's sunny, and then two weeks later you look out yours and see that it's raining, does that make me a liar? No, because what may be true at one time may not be true at another. Like wise, what is relevant in the 80's may not be the same when looked at from the 90's.\r\n\r\n[quote]Living in a college town, I've had to deal with kids that were easily four or five (if not more) years older than myself. Yet because they were simply older than I did not mean they had more experience in the real world.  These were twenty-somethings that had never been out of direct control and influence from mommy and daddy until very recently. Or at least they thought they were out of that net (while purchasing everything with daddy's unlimited business card and driving away in the vehicle purchased for them). These were dullwits and children, no questions asked. They had no real world experience at all and it oozed from their every motion and dripped from each word they said.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThe greatest irony of all of this, is that you act flabbergasted that George Lucas supposedly broke his promises. \r\n\r\n[quote]Yet that's not the point up for debate right now.[/quote]\r\n\r\nSo then why would you make it in the first place?

offline

Devoidless

3,675 posts

Jester

Posted November 5, '12 2:42am UTC

The greatest irony of all of this, is that you act flabbergasted that George Lucas supposedly broke his promises.

If anything, I'm 'flabbergasted' that you asked for proof that George Lucas was being hypocritical, and when I provide it to you, you just scoff at it and write it off.
This was not just a thing he said in passing over dinner, it was a Congressional hearing. That tends to mean that it was quite a bit deal for him. Do you tend to just walk into Congress and tell them "I dun liek cheerios, make em diffrent." No, of course not.
Thus, why would it makes sense to less than a decade later decide "I'm poor, let's try and make some more money off of this thing" and by doing such -totally- pull a 180?

The weather analogy is grossly ineffective and largely inappropriate at best. If I really need to explain why, you'd just be better off not attempting to grasp at straws my making such asinine remarks.

I am honestly confused as to what you were trying to prove with that quote. You just quoted George Lucas condemning people making money from altering/destroying works for profit. Which, you might be unaware of, is exactly what he did. The original theatrical version has only been released once since all the CGI work was done. Once. And even that was a (some might argue intentionally) shoddy Laserdisc master to DVD copy.
So you more or less proved that he was being hypocritical. Thanks!

So then why would you make it in the first place?

I only brought it up because you seemed to gather...you know what? I'm not going to even go into that. There is no reason.

So if you feel so, try again to prove your points. And actually try this time, for I refuse to enter a battle of wits against an unarmed opponent.

[quote]The greatest irony of all of this, is that you act flabbergasted that George Lucas supposedly broke his promises.[/quote]\r\nIf anything, I'm 'flabbergasted' that you asked for proof that George Lucas was being hypocritical, and when I provide it to you, you just scoff at it and write it off.\r\nThis was not just a thing he said in passing over dinner, it was a Congressional hearing. That tends to mean that it was quite a bit deal for him. Do you tend to just walk into Congress and tell them "I dun liek cheerios, make em diffrent." No, of course not.\r\nThus, why would it makes sense to less than a decade later decide "I'm poor, let's try and make some more money off of this thing" and by doing such -totally- pull a 180?\r\n\r\nThe weather analogy is grossly ineffective and largely inappropriate at best. If I really need to explain why, you'd just be better off not attempting to grasp at straws my making such asinine remarks.\r\n\r\nI am honestly confused as to what you were trying to prove with that quote. You just quoted George Lucas condemning people making money from altering/destroying works for profit. Which, you might be unaware of, is exactly what he did. The original theatrical version has only been released once since all the CGI work was done. Once. And even that was a (some might argue intentionally) shoddy Laserdisc master to DVD copy.\r\nSo you more or less proved that he was being hypocritical. Thanks!\r\n\r\n[quote] So then why would you make it in the first place?[/quote]\r\n\r\nI only brought it up because you seemed to gather...you know what? I'm not going to even go into that. There is no reason.\r\n\r\nSo if you feel so, try again to prove your points. And actually try this time, for I refuse to enter a battle of wits against an unarmed opponent.

offline

pangtongshu

9,808 posts

Jester

Posted November 5, '12 5:13am UTC

They're all similar in my opinion in terms of story,

No...episodes 4-6 had a downright beautiful and amazing story...episodes 1-3 had a crap filled story line that was thrown together mindlessly (during the process of making episode 1, Lucas himself had to make bull**** excuses for why the story was so cluttered and messed up just so he could feel safe about what he was doing)

-For example (yeah..I'll start breaking it down...and we will start with Episode 1)..during the invasion of Naboo..why in the hell did they have the battle droids start the invasion all the way in the forests?? With the Naboo guards insanely weak defense, why not just park down directly next to the city?

-How in the hell did the argument Qui-Gon Jinn work with the Gungans? (basically the one where he told them if the city of Naboo was taken over the droids would take them over soon after). Because, you know, droids work in water

-The very beginning, right off the bat, when Jinn and Obi-wan where moved into the negotiations room, not only did the droid right off assume the were jedi, but the way of "killing" them was to pump in extremely noticeable gas (if i was the bad guy...I'd use something a little more...less noticeable). Then, a good idea would be to just keep the doors shut for quite some time to ensure they were dead...instead they immediately open the door so the worthless droids could try shooting them (see the idiocy in doing this action?

-Remember in the beginning when Jinn and Obi-wan used the force to run faster to escape the droidekas? Remember later in the movie when Obi-wan couldn't reach Jinn in time when facing Darth Maul (resulting in Jinn's death)? Why didn't he use that force ability then??

-Why is Anakin building a C-3PO unit despite the fact that they are mass produced? Wasn't C-3PO supposed to be a creation of his own?

-Why didn't Jinn use the jedi mind trick he was so lenient on using to get the parts they needed for the ship? Why risk a child's life?

Just a few...trust me..I have more...much more

[quote]They're all similar in my opinion in terms of story,[/quote]\r\n\r\nNo...episodes 4-6 had a downright beautiful and amazing story...episodes 1-3 had a crap filled story line that was thrown together mindlessly (during the process of making episode 1, Lucas himself had to make bull**** excuses for why the story was so cluttered and messed up just so he could feel safe about what he was doing)\r\n\r\n-For example (yeah..I'll start breaking it down...and we will start with Episode 1)..during the invasion of Naboo..why in the hell did they have the battle droids start the invasion all the way in the forests?? With the Naboo guards insanely weak defense, why not just park down directly next to the city? \r\n\r\n-How in the hell did the argument Qui-Gon Jinn work with the Gungans? (basically the one where he told them if the city of Naboo was taken over the droids would take them over soon after). Because, you know, droids work in water\r\n\r\n-The very beginning, right off the bat, when Jinn and Obi-wan where moved into the negotiations room, not only did the droid right off [b]assume[/b] the were jedi, but the way of "killing" them was to pump in [b]extremely noticeable gas[/b] (if i was the bad guy...I'd use something a little more...less noticeable). Then, a good idea would be to just keep the doors shut for quite some time to ensure they were dead...instead they immediately open the door so the worthless droids could try shooting them (see the idiocy in doing this action?\r\n\r\n-Remember in the beginning when Jinn and Obi-wan used the force to run faster to escape the droidekas? Remember later in the movie when Obi-wan couldn't reach Jinn in time when facing Darth Maul (resulting in Jinn's death)? Why didn't he use that force ability then??\r\n\r\n-Why is Anakin building a C-3PO unit despite the fact that they are mass produced? Wasn't C-3PO supposed to be a creation of his own?\r\n\r\n-Why didn't Jinn use the jedi mind trick he was so lenient on using to get the parts they needed for the ship? Why risk a child's life?\r\n\r\nJust a few...trust me..I have more...much more

offline

Kasic

5,552 posts

Jester

Posted November 5, '12 7:16am UTC

No...episodes 4-6 had a downright beautiful and amazing story

...not really. While it wasn't bad, it certainly wasn't anything to get excited about.

episodes 1-3 had a crap filled story line that was thrown together mindlessly (during the process of making episode 1, Lucas himself had to make bull**** excuses for why the story was so cluttered and messed up just so he could feel safe about what he was doing)

I view it the opposite of you. Episodes 1-3 were good because it explained how things got to what they were. I can't think of any serious plot errors between 1-3 and 4-6. I would definitely recommend watching 4-6 before 1-3 though, as it flows better that way (not to mention going from increasingly better sfx/acting to pathetic sfx/cheesy acting would be a turnoff).

during the invasion of Naboo..why in the hell did they have the battle droids start the invasion all the way in the forests?? With the Naboo guards insanely weak defense, why not just park down directly next to the city?

-.-"

They started all over the planet at the same time. From another perspective, they already had the blockade in place. Why take more losses in a frontal assault when they could just weaken the strongest part before moving in force?

Because, you know, droids work in water

So people with the technology to create massive space battleships and armies of automated warriors don't have their equivalent of submarines?

The very beginning, right off the bat, when Jinn and Obi-wan where moved into the negotiations room, not only did the droid right off assume the were jedi,

I don't remember this one to be exact, but I don't remember anyone assuming they were jedi until they pulled their lightsabers. And if they did assume that, well, jedi are negotiators...it's not exactly uncommon. AND they were in jedi robes...with Obi-wan having a padawan's braid (although I think their hoods were up). So yeah.

but the way of "killing" them was to pump in extremely noticeable gas

Please. Movie logic. It's so the people watching know what's going on.

Why didn't he use that force ability then??

Because the rotating shields (although I don't know why such shields were there in the first place) blocked him.

Again, movie logic. I don't see why Obi-wan didn't just slam Darth Maul to the ground using the force from behind the shields.

If you want to continue down this movie logic path, why does Luke only swing at Darth Vader's lightsaber, and why can't he hit someone who moves 1/4 the speed of a 60 year old man with breathing problems?

Why is Anakin building a C-3PO unit despite the fact that they are mass produced? Wasn't C-3PO supposed to be a creation of his own?

Hobby/own version? Why do people build their own computers? They're mass produced.

Why didn't Jinn use the jedi mind trick he was so lenient on using to get the parts they needed for the ship? Why risk a child's life?

Jedi code/Giant fly guy was immune, remember? He DID try to persuade him, Guldo was resistant. Any more would be straight out theft or coercion.

Just a few...trust me..I have more...much more

All of which are complaints about movie logic or personal opinions on what should have happened.

Here's some things for you.

Why didn't Obi-Wan just run away from Darth Vader? There's no way he could have caught up, instead he just lets him kill him. Also, why does he poof away?

Why did snow monster hang Luke up instead of simply snacking on him on his way home?

Probably my most grievous one...why the hell does the emperor keep shocking pointlessly the ENTIRE TIME slow poke Vader picks him up and carries him over to a COMPLETELY POINTLESS and RANDOM shaft to the CENTER of the Death Star, instead of just cutting him in two?

[quote]No...episodes 4-6 had a downright beautiful and amazing story[/quote]\r\n\r\n...not really. While it wasn't bad, it certainly wasn't anything to get excited about.\r\n\r\n[quote]episodes 1-3 had a crap filled story line that was thrown together mindlessly (during the process of making episode 1, Lucas himself had to make bull**** excuses for why the story was so cluttered and messed up just so he could feel safe about what he was doing)[/quote]\r\n\r\nI view it the opposite of you. Episodes 1-3 were good because it explained how things got to what they were. I can't think of any serious plot errors between 1-3 and 4-6. I would definitely recommend watching 4-6 before 1-3 though, as it flows better that way (not to mention going from increasingly better sfx/acting to pathetic sfx/cheesy acting would be a turnoff).\r\n\r\n[quote]during the invasion of Naboo..why in the hell did they have the battle droids start the invasion all the way in the forests?? With the Naboo guards insanely weak defense, why not just park down directly next to the city?[/quote]\r\n\r\n-.-" \r\n\r\nThey started all over the planet at the same time. From another perspective, they already had the blockade in place. Why take more losses in a frontal assault when they could just weaken the strongest part before moving in force?\r\n\r\n[quote]Because, you know, droids work in water[/quote]\r\n\r\nSo people with the technology to create massive space battleships and armies of automated warriors don't have their equivalent of submarines? \r\n\r\n[quote]The very beginning, right off the bat, when Jinn and Obi-wan where moved into the negotiations room, not only did the droid right off assume the were jedi,[/quote]\r\n\r\nI don't remember this one to be exact, but I don't remember anyone assuming they were jedi until they pulled their lightsabers. And if they did assume that, well, jedi are negotiators...it's not exactly uncommon. AND they were in jedi robes...with Obi-wan having a padawan's braid (although I think their hoods were up). So yeah. \r\n\r\n[quote] but the way of "killing" them was to pump in extremely noticeable gas [/quote]\r\n\r\nPlease. Movie logic. It's so the people watching know what's going on. \r\n\r\n[quote]Why didn't he use that force ability then??[/quote]\r\n\r\nBecause the rotating shields (although I don't know why such shields were there in the first place) blocked him. \r\n\r\nAgain, movie logic. I don't see why Obi-wan didn't just slam Darth Maul to the ground using the force from behind the shields. \r\n\r\nIf you want to continue down this movie logic path, why does Luke only swing at Darth Vader's lightsaber, and why can't he hit someone who moves 1/4 the speed of a 60 year old man with breathing problems?\r\n\r\n[quote]Why is Anakin building a C-3PO unit despite the fact that they are mass produced? Wasn't C-3PO supposed to be a creation of his own?[/quote]\r\n\r\nHobby/own version? Why do people build their own computers? They're mass produced. \r\n\r\n[quote]Why didn't Jinn use the jedi mind trick he was so lenient on using to get the parts they needed for the ship? Why risk a child's life?[/quote]\r\n\r\nJedi code/Giant fly guy was immune, remember? He DID try to persuade him, Guldo was resistant. Any more would be straight out theft or coercion. \r\n\r\n[quote]Just a few...trust me..I have more...much more[/quote]\r\n\r\nAll of which are complaints about movie logic or personal opinions on what should have happened. \r\n\r\nHere's some things for you.\r\n\r\nWhy didn't Obi-Wan just run away from Darth Vader? There's no way he could have caught up, instead he just lets him kill him. Also, why does he poof away?\r\n\r\nWhy did snow monster hang Luke up instead of simply snacking on him on his way home? \r\n\r\nProbably my most grievous one...why the hell does the emperor keep shocking pointlessly the ENTIRE TIME slow poke Vader picks him up and carries him over to a COMPLETELY POINTLESS and RANDOM shaft to the CENTER of the Death Star, instead of just cutting him in two?

offline

pangtongshu

9,808 posts

Jester

Posted November 5, '12 8:22am UTC

but I don't remember anyone assuming they were jedi until they pulled their lightsabers. And if they did assume that, well, jedi are negotiators...it's not exactly uncommon. AND they were in jedi robes...with Obi-wan having a padawan's braid (although I think their hoods were up). So yeah.

They didn't pull out their lightsabers until the gas started to be pumped in (also..they had no reason to pull out their lightsabers..)

Also...that just adds more to my point. They are going to negotiate..why distinct themselves so much as someone that is seen as an enemy by these people?

Because the rotating shields (although I don't know why such shields were there in the first place) blocked him.

He still had time to use the force run before hand

If you want to continue down this movie logic path, why does Luke only swing at Darth Vader's lightsaber, and why can't he hit someone who moves 1/4 the speed of a 60 year old man with breathing problems?

4-6 had large emphasis on the use of the force in fights rather than lightsabers. Fights were more concentrated..though I will concede at the part of Luke aiming for Vader's saber...the same happens in the fight with Darth Maul as well

Jedi code/Giant fly guy was immune, remember? He DID try to persuade him, Guldo was resistant. Any more would be straight out theft or coercion.

Actually..the Fly guy wasn't immune. He used the mind trick on him to get Anakin as a part of the deal. As for the code...where was this code all the other times Jinn used the force to his advantage?

Why didn't Obi-Wan just run away from Darth Vader? There's no way he could have caught up, instead he just lets him kill him. Also, why does he poof away?

He poofs away because he knew the ability to use the force to basically become a ghost (which he learned from Qui-Gon Jinn). He allows Vader to "kill" him so that he could become this ghost...thus allowing him to help Luke more so than he was able to before

why the hell does the emperor keep shocking pointlessly the ENTIRE TIME slow poke Vader picks him up and carries him over to a COMPLETELY POINTLESS and RANDOM shaft to the CENTER of the Death Star, instead of just cutting him in two?

That was quite the pivotal scene...actually. The emperor shocks slowly like that as a way to torture Luke...to try and show how much superior the Dark
Side is over the Light Side (basically a "I can do this because I'm better" thing)...Vader picking him up and throwing him over rather than cutting him in two was to show Vader overcoming the Dark Side and coming to his senses. It made the scene climatic..him cutting him in two would just be too abrupt..thus ruining the ambiance of that scene.

Here...I got the review I've mentioned a few times for you all

[quote]but I don't remember anyone assuming they were jedi until they pulled their lightsabers. And if they did assume that, well, jedi are negotiators...it's not exactly uncommon. AND they were in jedi robes...with Obi-wan having a padawan's braid (although I think their hoods were up). So yeah. [/quote]\r\n\r\nThey didn't pull out their lightsabers until the gas started to be pumped in (also..they had no reason to pull out their lightsabers..)\r\n\r\nAlso...that just adds more to my point. They are going to negotiate..why distinct themselves so much as someone that is seen as an enemy by these people? \r\n\r\n[quote]Because the rotating shields (although I don't know why such shields were there in the first place) blocked him. [/quote]\r\n\r\nHe still had time to use the force run before hand\r\n\r\n[quote]If you want to continue down this movie logic path, why does Luke only swing at Darth Vader's lightsaber, and why can't he hit someone who moves 1/4 the speed of a 60 year old man with breathing problems?[/quote]\r\n\r\n4-6 had large emphasis on the use of the force in fights rather than lightsabers. Fights were more concentrated..though I will concede at the part of Luke aiming for Vader's saber...the same happens in the fight with Darth Maul as well\r\n\r\n[quote]Jedi code/Giant fly guy was immune, remember? He DID try to persuade him, Guldo was resistant. Any more would be straight out theft or coercion. [/quote]\r\n\r\nActually..the Fly guy wasn't immune. He used the mind trick on him to get Anakin as a part of the deal. As for the code...where was this code all the other times Jinn used the force to his advantage? \r\n\r\n[quote]Why didn't Obi-Wan just run away from Darth Vader? There's no way he could have caught up, instead he just lets him kill him. Also, why does he poof away?[/quote]\r\n\r\nHe poofs away because he knew the ability to use the force to basically become a ghost (which he learned from Qui-Gon Jinn). He allows Vader to "kill" him so that he could become this ghost...thus allowing him to help Luke more so than he was able to before\r\n\r\n[quote]why the hell does the emperor keep shocking pointlessly the ENTIRE TIME slow poke Vader picks him up and carries him over to a COMPLETELY POINTLESS and RANDOM shaft to the CENTER of the Death Star, instead of just cutting him in two?[/quote]\r\n\r\nThat was quite the pivotal scene...actually. The emperor shocks slowly like that as a way to torture Luke...to try and show how much superior the Dark \r\nSide is over the Light Side (basically a "I can do this because I'm better" thing)...Vader picking him up and throwing him over rather than cutting him in two was to show Vader overcoming the Dark Side and coming to his senses. It made the scene climatic..him cutting him in two would just be too abrupt..thus ruining the ambiance of that scene.\r\n\r\n[url=http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-wars/star-wars-episode-1-the-phantom-menace/]Here...I got the review I've mentioned a few times for you all[/url]

offline

pickpocket

5,952 posts

Shepherd

Posted November 5, '12 11:54am UTC

I honestly think that this will probably be more dumbed down kiddie starwars. I mean, they already have the cartoon series (that might move to Disney channel...?) and that is popular with the younger generation. They are trying to make starwars for the next generation. We will always love the origional 3 because they were really made for us. We simply aren't the target audience. What are the benifits of making it a younger kid movie? Kids need parents to take them to the movies. More people, more tickets, more money, more "sucsess", more merchandise, more money, more movies, repeate.

Categories

Quests

Community

Forums → Popular Media → Disney Bought Star Wars