Megalextoria
Retro computing and gaming, sci-fi books, tv and movies and other geeky stuff.

Home » Sci-Fi/Fantasy » Star Wars » Star Wars Special Editions: Pros & Cons
Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend 
Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Star Wars Special Editions: Pros & Cons [message #211735] Mon, 16 December 2013 18:08 Go to next message
TMC is currently offline  TMC
Messages: 22
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
Junior Member
http://domcappelloblog.wordpress.com/2013/12/16/star-wars-sp ecial-editions-pros-cons/

*Haven’t included every minuet alteration, just blaring ones in the 2004 DVD releases.

“A New Hope”

- Pro. Improved exterior shots of the Jawa’s Sandcrawler as it rolls across Tatooine.

- Pro. Greatly improved shot of Obi-Wan Kenobi’s previously cardboard looking hut.

- Con. Far too many CGI extras added, crowding around in the streets of Mos Eisley.

- Undecided. Han Solo shot first. Greedo shot first. Every time I view this film, it seems as if this particular scene has been altered again. I’m too confused to weigh in anymore.

- Pro. Jabba the Hutt and Boba Fett make cameos. Since The Emperor is only spoken of and Yoda had not yet been created, it’s nice to give the audience a hint of this densely populated galaxy. Something which is commonplace nowadays, introducing characters in minor roles and expanding their parts in sequels.

- Pro. Brand new shot included of the Millennium Falcon escaping Mos Eisley..

- Pro. The praxis wave is added when Alderaan is blown to pieces by the Death Star.

- Con. While training on the Millennium Falcon, Luke Skywalker’s lightsaber changes color from green to white. Obi-Wan had given Luke a blue lightsaber earlier in the film, which Luke uses “The Empire Strikes Back.” Luke doesn’t unveil a newly constructed green lightsaber until “Return of the Jedi.”

- Pro. A thud sound effect is added when a Storm Trooper infamously bumps his head.

- Pro. Han Solo encounters even more Storm Troopers while escaping the Death Star.

- Pro. Darth Vader’s red lightsaber is enhanced for wide shots (after Obi-Wan becomes one with the Force) where it had initially looked too diminutive. Size matters if you are a dark lord of the Sith.

- Pro. Improved shots of the Millennium Falcon approaching Yavin.

- Pro. Improved shots of X-Wings departing their hidden base.

- Pro. Improved shots of X-Wings approaching the Death Star.

- Pro. The praxis wave appears again when the Death Star is destroyed.

Verdict: Only two cons as long as you can reconcile the whole “Han shot first” debate.

“The Empire Strikes Back”

- Pro. New shots included of the snow creature which had attacked Luke on Hoth. What I really enjoyed was that this hulking Wampa was clearly a “man in a suit” and not CGI.

- Con. I don’t mind that Ian McDiarmid was superimposed as The Emperor, but it does bother me that the dialogue in this scene was changed. The Emperor now informs Darth Vader that the rebel who destroyed the Death Star is the offspring of Anakin Skywalker, but Vader already knew that because he said “Skywalker” before Imperial forces began their invasion of Hoth earlier in the film. As if the prequels hadn’t created enough plot holes, this special edition added another. Is Vader just being coy with The Emperor?

- Undecided. Temuera Morrison, who had played Jango Fett in “Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones,” re-dubs Boba Fett. I guess it was necessary since Boba is a clone of Jango, but it takes away some of the Fett man’s mystique.

- Pro. New exterior shots show the grandeur of Cloud City.

- Pro. Extras added when Lando Calrissian addresses Cloud City.

- Pro. R2-D2 fires a smoke screen during the escape from Cloud City. At least this gives all the Storm Troopers an excuse for being such lousy shots since they rarely hit their intended targets.

- Pro. Luke’s wimpy yelp added for the 1997 special edition was removed.

- Pro. Darth Vader’s dialogue is slightly altered as he returns to his super Star Destroyer and a new shot (“Return of the Jedi” outtake) was added of his shuttle docking inside of the Star Destroyer. A harmless modification.

Verdict: Only The Emperor’s new unnecessary expositional dialogue hurts the film.

“Return of the Jedi”

- Con. CGI band rocking out inside of Jabba’s palace. Such a lame scene.

- Pro. Banthas shown grazing on Tatooine. Another harmless modification.

- Pro. The Sarlacc is given some extra tentacles and a beak to eat Boba Fett with.

- Irrelevant. Removing the eyebrows of Anakin Skywalker.

- Pro. The praxis wave is used again in the destruction of Death Star II.

- Pro. The defeat of the Galactic Empire is celebrated on Tatooine, Cloud City, Naboo, and Coruscant. With the exception of Naboo, all of this was on the 1997 special edition. Naboo was added in 2004 and Coruscant was also redesigned to more closely resemble how it appeared in the prequels.

- Pro. More triumphant music sounds during the victory celebration on Endor..

- Con. Hayden Christiansen appears as a Force Ghost… WHAT!? HELL NO!

Verdict: Hayden “Mannequin Skywalker” Christiansen has sullied Star Wars enough.
Re: Star Wars Special Editions: Pros & Cons [message #211736 is a reply to message #211735] Mon, 16 December 2013 19:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Your Name is currently offline  Your Name
Messages: 910
Registered: September 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <81efb973-3e6a-4bb0-b292-638eac6cbf4f@googlegroups.com>,
<tmc1982@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> http://domcappelloblog.wordpress.com/2013/12/16/star-wars-sp ecial-editions-pro
> s-cons/
>
> ìA New Hopeî
>
<snip>
>
> - Con. Far too many CGI extras added, crowding around in the streets of Mos
> Eisley.

Pro. It *is* meant to be a busy (if backwater) spaceport. :-)




> - Pro. Jabba the Hutt and Boba Fett make cameos. Since The Emperor is only
> spoken of and Yoda had not yet been created, itís nice to give the audience a
> hint of this densely populated galaxy. Something which is commonplace
> nowadays, introducing characters in minor roles and expanding their parts in
> sequels.

Con. Jabba looks ridiculously silly.




> ìThe Empire Strikes Backî
>
> - Undecided. Temuera Morrison, who had played Jango Fett in ìStar Wars:
> Episode II ñ Attack of the Clones,î re-dubs Boba Fett. I guess it was
> necessary since Boba is a clone of Jango, but it takes away some of the Fett
> manís mystique.

Con. Temuera Morrison's "acting" ability is attrocious (which is why
his "career" now consists of hosting a silly "reality" TV show all
about himself) - he should never be in any of the movies. :-(




> ìReturn of the Jediî
>
> - Con. CGI band rocking out inside of Jabbaís palace. Such a lame scene.

Pro. At least Bea Arthur isn't singing. ;-)




> - Pro. More triumphant music sounds during the victory celebration on Endor.

Con. They removed the Yub-Yub song. :-(




> - Con. Hayden Christiansen appears as a Force GhostÖ WHAT!? HELL NO!

Yep, definitely a Con and one of (if not THE) silliest change. :-(
Re: Star Wars Special Editions: Pros & Cons [message #211776 is a reply to message #211735] Tue, 17 December 2013 05:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sandman is currently offline  Sandman
Messages: 97
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Member
In article <81efb973-3e6a-4bb0-b292-638eac6cbf4f@googlegroups.com>, tmc1982@gmail.com <tmc1982@gmail.com> wrote:

> - Pro. Improved exterior shots of the Jawa’s Sandcrawler as it rolls
> across Tatooine.

Agreed.

> - Pro. Greatly improved shot of Obi-Wan Kenobi’s previously cardboard
> looking hut.

Sure

> - Con. Far too many CGI extras added, crowding around in the streets of
> Mos Eisley.

Agreed.

> - Undecided. Han Solo shot first. Greedo shot first. Every time I view
> this film, it seems as if this particular scene has been altered again.
> I’m too confused to weigh in anymore.

Han should shoot first. No, scratch that, Han should be the only one who
shoots. No "first". They did change it for the DVD release to make it
tighter between the shots, but Greedo still comes off as a lousy moron for
a bounty hunter.

> - Pro. Jabba the Hutt and Boba Fett make cameos. Since The Emperor is
> only spoken of and Yoda had not yet been created, it’s nice to give the
> audience a hint of this densely populated galaxy. Something which is
> commonplace nowadays, introducing characters in minor roles and
> expanding their parts in sequels.

This is a con, Jabba is an unknown threat to Han in ESB, and the audience
knows nothing about him, which is revealed in ROTJ. Making him a comedy
character in ANH destroys the character. The Jabba in ROTJ wouldn't bother
going down to the landing bays to speak to Han himself, he sends his
henchmen.

> - Pro. Brand new shot included of the Millennium Falcon escaping Mos
> Eisley.

Agreed. I loved the shot.

> - Pro. The praxis wave is added when Alderaan is blown to pieces by the
> Death Star.

Which has no bearing on physics, and is just some Sci-Fi added visuals that
add nothing to the destruction. It was first used in Star Trek and has been
over-used by every Sci Fi movie everywhere. An explosion, especially in
space, does not travel in a disc form unless mass forces it to. Alderaan
has no such mass. It could be argued that the trench on the death star
would make the praxis wave more logical, but the praxis wave of the death
star is not on the same plane as the trench (on the second death star it
is, but there we have other problems).

> - Pro. Han Solo encounters even more Storm Troopers while escaping the
> Death Star.

Agreed.

> - Pro. Improved shots of the Millennium Falcon approaching Yavin.

Agreed.

> - Pro. Improved shots of X-Wings departing their hidden base.

Agreed.

> - Pro. Improved shots of X-Wings approaching the Death Star.

Same as above.

> - Pro. The praxis wave appears again when the Death Star is destroyed.

Incorrectly so.

> “The Empire Strikes Back”
>
> - Pro. New shots included of the snow creature which had attacked Luke
> on Hoth. What I really enjoyed was that this hulking Wampa was clearly a
> “man in a suit” and not CGI.

The "Oh noes, me arm has come off!" dance. Clearly a con.

> - Con. I don’t mind that Ian McDiarmid was superimposed as The Emperor,
> but it does bother me that the dialogue in this scene was changed. The
> Emperor now informs Darth Vader that the rebel who destroyed the Death
> Star is the offspring of Anakin Skywalker, but Vader already knew that
> because he said “Skywalker” before Imperial forces began their invasion
> of Hoth earlier in the film. As if the prequels hadn’t created enough
> plot holes, this special edition added another. Is Vader just being coy
> with The Emperor?

Agreed.

> - Undecided. Temuera Morrison, who had played Jango Fett in “Star Wars:
> Episode II – Attack of the Clones,” re-dubs Boba Fett. I guess it was
> necessary since Boba is a clone of Jango, but it takes away some of the
> Fett man’s mystique.

And unnecessary so.

> - Pro. New exterior shots show the grandeur of Cloud City.

Agreed

> - Pro. Extras added when Lando Calrissian addresses Cloud City.

Sure

> - Pro. R2-D2 fires a smoke screen during the escape from Cloud City. At
> least this gives all the Storm Troopers an excuse for being such lousy
> shots since they rarely hit their intended targets.

Uh, I don't think this was new to the SE...

> “Return of the Jedi”
>
> - Con. CGI band rocking out inside of Jabba’s palace. Such a lame scene.

Indeed.

> - Pro. Banthas shown grazing on Tatooine. Another harmless modification.
>
> - Pro. The Sarlacc is given some extra tentacles and a beak to eat Boba Fett with.

Con. And it sounds like a pig.

> - Pro. The praxis wave is used again in the destruction of Death Star II.

Con.

> - Pro. The defeat of the Galactic Empire is celebrated on Tatooine,
> Cloud City, Naboo, and Coruscant. With the exception of Naboo, all of
> this was on the 1997 special edition. Naboo was added in 2004 and
> Coruscant was also redesigned to more closely resemble how it appeared
> in the prequels.

Unimportant.

> - Pro. More triumphant music sounds during the victory celebration on Endor.
>
> - Con. Hayden Christiansen appears as a Force Ghost… WHAT!? HELL NO!
>
> Verdict: Hayden “Mannequin Skywalker” Christiansen has sullied Star Wars enough.

Con: Palpatine screaming when falling down the shaft

Con: Ewoks are kept in the movie :)


--
Sandman[.net]
Re: Star Wars Special Editions: Pros & Cons [message #211851 is a reply to message #211776] Tue, 17 December 2013 14:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Your Name is currently offline  Your Name
Messages: 910
Registered: September 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <slrnlb094t.bnh.mr@irc.sandman.net>, Sandman
<mr@sandman.net> wrote:
> In article <81efb973-3e6a-4bb0-b292-638eac6cbf4f@googlegroups.com>,
> tmc1982@gmail.com <tmc1982@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> ’ÄúA New Hope’Äù
<snip>
>>
>> - Undecided. Han Solo shot first. Greedo shot first. Every time I view
>> this film, it seems as if this particular scene has been altered again.
>> I’Äôm too confused to weigh in anymore.
>
> Han should shoot first. No, scratch that, Han should be the only one who
> shoots. No "first". They did change it for the DVD release to make it
> tighter between the shots, but Greedo still comes off as a lousy moron for
> a bounty hunter.

Although not in the movie, the backstory is that Greddo *IS* a "lousy
moron for a bounty hunter", because he's not actually a bounty hunter.
He's a wannabe bounty hunter - he wants to be a bounty hunter like his
father, but Greedo doesn't have the intelligence nor skills to be able
to do so.

From memory, Han is also his first real attempt to bring a bounty in.
Re: Star Wars Special Editions: Pros & Cons [message #211910 is a reply to message #211851] Wed, 18 December 2013 01:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sandman is currently offline  Sandman
Messages: 97
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Member
In article <181220130855028488%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

>> Han should shoot first. No, scratch that, Han should be the only one who
>> shoots. No "first". They did change it for the DVD release to make it
>> tighter between the shots, but Greedo still comes off as a lousy moron for
>> a bounty hunter.
>
> Although not in the movie, the backstory is that Greddo *IS* a "lousy
> moron for a bounty hunter"

What backstory is that? Is it EU, official or conjured after the special
edition?

> because he's not actually a bounty hunter. He's a wannabe bounty hunter
> - he wants to be a bounty hunter like his father, but Greedo doesn't
> have the intelligence nor skills to be able to do so.

When ANH came up on the big screen in 1977, Greedo was no incompetent
wannabe, he was a legitimate threat to Han at that point, and Han took care
of it.

> From memory, Han is also his first real attempt to bring a bounty in.

According to whom? I'm asking because the EU bases characters on their
interpretation of the movies, and official backstory created after the SE
would also incorporate it based on what we see, not what we once saw.


--
Sandman[.net]
Re: Star Wars Special Editions: Pros & Cons [message #212172 is a reply to message #211910] Thu, 19 December 2013 00:26 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Your Name is currently offline  Your Name
Messages: 910
Registered: September 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <slrnlb2fto.evl.mr@irc.sandman.net>, Sandman
<mr@sandman.net> wrote:
> In article <181220130855028488%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name
> <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Han should shoot first. No, scratch that, Han should be the only one who
>>> shoots. No "first". They did change it for the DVD release to make it
>>> tighter between the shots, but Greedo still comes off as a lousy moron for
>>> a bounty hunter.
>>
>> Although not in the movie, the backstory is that Greddo *IS* a "lousy
>> moron for a bounty hunter"
>
> What backstory is that? Is it EU, official or conjured after the special
> edition?
>
>> because he's not actually a bounty hunter. He's a wannabe bounty hunter
>> - he wants to be a bounty hunter like his father, but Greedo doesn't
>> have the intelligence nor skills to be able to do so.
>
> When ANH came up on the big screen in 1977, Greedo was no incompetent
> wannabe, he was a legitimate threat to Han at that point, and Han took care
> of it.
>
>> From memory, Han is also his first real attempt to bring a bounty in.
>
> According to whom? I'm asking because the EU bases characters on their
> interpretation of the movies, and official backstory created after the SE
> would also incorporate it based on what we see, not what we once saw.

What we saw and still see on-screen is Greedo holding a gun on Han in
an attempt to claim Jabba's bounty ... there was and is absolutely zero
evidence on-screen of Greedo's competence, legitimacy, nor
qualification as a bounty hunter. Obviously he's not that good at the
job since Han gets away and Greedo is dead..

I'm not sure where or when the backstory about Greedo's father and
Greedo wanting to follow him as a bounty hunter comes from, but it's
official in the sense that is part of the EU "encycopedia" ... it may
have come or be based on George Luces' own backstory for his
characters, or it may have been written by another author.

There is a cut-scene from Episode I where Anakin has a fight with
Greedo, and beats him.
Re: Star Wars Special Editions: Pros & Cons [message #212173 is a reply to message #211735] Thu, 19 December 2013 01:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Your Name is currently offline  Your Name
Messages: 910
Registered: September 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <81efb973-3e6a-4bb0-b292-638eac6cbf4f@googlegroups.com>,
<tmc1982@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> http://domcappelloblog.wordpress.com/2013/12/16/star-wars-sp ecial-editions-pro
> s-cons/

Massive Pro: the useless imbecile JJ Abrams was in no way involved!! :-)
Re: Star Wars Special Editions: Pros & Cons [message #212174 is a reply to message #212172] Thu, 19 December 2013 01:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sandman is currently offline  Sandman
Messages: 97
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Member
In article <191220131826138389%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

>> According to whom? I'm asking because the EU bases characters on their
>> interpretation of the movies, and official backstory created after the SE
>> would also incorporate it based on what we see, not what we once saw.
>
> What we saw and still see on-screen is Greedo holding a gun on Han in
> an attempt to claim Jabba's bounty ... there was and is absolutely zero
> evidence on-screen of Greedo's competence, legitimacy, nor
> qualification as a bounty hunter. Obviously he's not that good at the
> job since Han gets away and Greedo is dead..

False logic. It is true that we see no signs of him being competent, but
that doesn't make him incompetent. The assumption is that he's as good as
any bounty hunter at least, given the fact that Jabba has him employed at
least. Or at least he seems to answer to Jabba. And at that point in time,
Jabba is just some looming threat to Han, someone with power, and Greedo is
speaking for him, Han is bartering with him. None of these things leads to
a conclusion that he's incompetent.

In fact, the only thing Greedo misses (in the original) is Han having his
hand under the table, but that's it.

> I'm not sure where or when the backstory about Greedo's father and
> Greedo wanting to follow him as a bounty hunter comes from, but it's
> official in the sense that is part of the EU "encycopedia" ... it may
> have come or be based on George Luces' own backstory for his
> characters, or it may have been written by another author.

Until we know, it is irrelevant trivia to the discussion.

> There is a cut-scene from Episode I where Anakin has a fight with
> Greedo, and beats him.

I know. But I'm talking about the original intentions for the Greedo
characters, not intentions invented to retcon the character based on idiocy
from the special editions.

--
Sandman[.net]
Re: Star Wars Special Editions: Pros & Cons [message #212175 is a reply to message #212173] Thu, 19 December 2013 01:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sandman is currently offline  Sandman
Messages: 97
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Member
In article <191220131921387893%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

> In article <81efb973-3e6a-4bb0-b292-638eac6cbf4f@googlegroups.com>,
> <tmc1982@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> http://domcappelloblog.wordpress.com/2013/12/16/star-wars-sp ecial-editions-pro
>> s-cons/
>
> Massive Pro: the useless imbecile JJ Abrams was in no way involved!! :-)

Do you mean JJ Abrams, the guys that makes movies that are about a hundred
times better than the prequels? That's the guy? :)

--
Sandman[.net]
Re: Star Wars Special Editions: Pros & Cons [message #212348 is a reply to message #212174] Thu, 19 December 2013 14:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Your Name is currently offline  Your Name
Messages: 910
Registered: September 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <slrnlb569g.jlv.mr@irc.sandman.net>, Sandman
<mr@sandman.net> wrote:

> In article <191220131826138389%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name
> <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>
>>> According to whom? I'm asking because the EU bases characters on their
>>> interpretation of the movies, and official backstory created after the SE
>>> would also incorporate it based on what we see, not what we once saw.
>>
>> What we saw and still see on-screen is Greedo holding a gun on Han in
>> an attempt to claim Jabba's bounty ... there was and is absolutely zero
>> evidence on-screen of Greedo's competence, legitimacy, nor
>> qualification as a bounty hunter. Obviously he's not that good at the
>> job since Han gets away and Greedo is dead..
>
> False logic. It is true that we see no signs of him being competent, but
> that doesn't make him incompetent. The assumption is that he's as good as
> any bounty hunter at least, given the fact that Jabba has him employed at
> least. Or at least he seems to answer to Jabba. And at that point in time,
> Jabba is just some looming threat to Han, someone with power, and Greedo is
> speaking for him, Han is bartering with him. None of these things leads to
> a conclusion that he's incompetent.
>
> In fact, the only thing Greedo misses (in the original) is Han having his
> hand under the table, but that's it.

There's no on-screen proof that Jabba employed Greedo. Greedo could
easily have simply found out about the bounty and decided to try and
cash-in by himself.




>> I'm not sure where or when the backstory about Greedo's father and
>> Greedo wanting to follow him as a bounty hunter comes from, but it's
>> official in the sense that is part of the EU "encycopedia" ... it may
>> have come or be based on George Luces' own backstory for his
>> characters, or it may have been written by another author.
>
> Until we know, it is irrelevant trivia to the discussion.

It's not irrelevant since it is official, but if you want to be a
"what's on-screen only" nutter, then as below ...




>> There is a cut-scene from Episode I where Anakin has a fight with
>> Greedo, and beats him.
>
> I know. But I'm talking about the original intentions for the Greedo
> characters, not intentions invented to retcon the character based on idiocy
> from the special editions.

Again, what we saw and still see on-screen is Greedo holding a gun on
Han in an attempt to claim Jabba's bounty ... there was and is
absolutely zero evidence on-screen of Greedo's competence, legitimacy,
nor qualification as a bounty hunter.
Re: Star Wars Special Editions: Pros & Cons [message #212349 is a reply to message #212175] Thu, 19 December 2013 14:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Your Name is currently offline  Your Name
Messages: 910
Registered: September 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <slrnlb56b0.jlv.mr@irc.sandman.net>, Sandman
<mr@sandman.net> wrote:
> In article <191220131921387893%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name
> <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>> In article <81efb973-3e6a-4bb0-b292-638eac6cbf4f@googlegroups.com>,
>> <tmc1982@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> http://domcappelloblog.wordpress.com/2013/12/16/star-wars-sp ecial-editions-
>>> pros-cons/
>>
>> Massive Pro: the useless imbecile JJ Abrams was in no way involved!! :-)
>
> Do you mean JJ Abrams, the guys that makes movies that are about a hundred
> times better than the prequels? That's the guy? :)

Whether or not Abrams movies are "better" is a matter of irrelevant
opinion, but it's a fact that they certainly aint "Star Wars" and his
latest movies aren't even "Star Trek" in anything but name and simply
pee all over the real "Star Trek" franchise. :-(
Re: Star Wars Special Editions: Pros & Cons [message #212502 is a reply to message #212349] Fri, 20 December 2013 02:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sandman is currently offline  Sandman
Messages: 97
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Member
In article <201220130848295960%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

> In article <slrnlb56b0.jlv.mr@irc.sandman.net>, Sandman
> <mr@sandman.net> wrote:
>> In article <191220131921387893%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name
>> <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>>> In article <81efb973-3e6a-4bb0-b292-638eac6cbf4f@googlegroups.com>,
>>> <tmc1982@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> http://domcappelloblog.wordpress.com/2013/12/16/star-wars-sp ecial-editions-
>>>> pros-cons/
>>>
>>> Massive Pro: the useless imbecile JJ Abrams was in no way involved!! :-)
>>
>> Do you mean JJ Abrams, the guys that makes movies that are about a hundred
>> times better than the prequels? That's the guy? :)
>
> Whether or not Abrams movies are "better" is a matter of irrelevant
> opinion, but it's a fact that they certainly aint "Star Wars" and his
> latest movies aren't even "Star Trek" in anything but name and simply
> pee all over the real "Star Trek" franchise. :-(

I'm no Star Trek fan, but the two movies from Abrams are the only Star Trek
movies I've enjoyed watching. Star Trek movies are exceedingly boring, and
he made them fun again.

The last three Star Wars movies were not only boring, but also exceedingly
poorly written, poorly directed and with actors that are really good in
other movies play cardboard cutouts of themselves.

There is no chance that Abrams will make something worse than that. Plus,
he has made a lot better movies quantity-wize than Irvin Kershner has, who
directed the best movie in the world; The Empire Strikes Back.

George Lucas has in his lifetime managed to direct one good Sci Fi movie,
JJ Abrams has made two, so his track record is a lot better than Lucas.



--
Sandman[.net]
Re: Star Wars Special Editions: Pros & Cons [message #212636 is a reply to message #212502] Fri, 20 December 2013 15:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Your Name is currently offline  Your Name
Messages: 910
Registered: September 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <slrnlb7s6v.ned.mr@irc.sandman.net>, Sandman
<mr@sandman.net> wrote:
> In article <201220130848295960%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name
> <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>> In article <slrnlb56b0.jlv.mr@irc.sandman.net>, Sandman
>> <mr@sandman.net> wrote:
>>> In article <191220131921387893%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name
>>> <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>>>> In article <81efb973-3e6a-4bb0-b292-638eac6cbf4f@googlegroups.com>,
>>>> <tmc1982@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > http://domcappelloblog.wordpress.com/2013/12/16/star-wars-sp ecial-edit
>>>> > ions-
>>>> > pros-cons/
>>>>
>>>> Massive Pro: the useless imbecile JJ Abrams was in no way involved!!
>>>> :-)
>>>
>>> Do you mean JJ Abrams, the guys that makes movies that are about a hundred
>>> times better than the prequels? That's the guy? :)
>>
>> Whether or not Abrams movies are "better" is a matter of irrelevant
>> opinion, but it's a fact that they certainly aint "Star Wars" and his
>> latest movies aren't even "Star Trek" in anything but name and simply
>> pee all over the real "Star Trek" franchise. :-(
>
> I'm no Star Trek fan, but the two movies from Abrams are the only Star Trek
> movies I've enjoyed watching. Star Trek movies are exceedingly boring, and
> he made them fun again.

Which basically proves my point. He made movies that weren't really
"Star Trek". Like all silly "reboots", he ignored and changed
established facts, etc. In reality he creates a different entity (at
best a second sub-franchise) hiding behind the same name as the real
"Star Trek".



> The last three Star Wars movies were not only boring, but also exceedingly
> poorly written, poorly directed and with actors that are really good in
> other movies play cardboard cutouts of themselves.
>
> There is no chance that Abrams will make something worse than that.

Yes there is. If he goes down the same route as previously, he'll
create ill-fitting messes that change established facts, etc. to suit
his own (and Hollyweird's) silly dreams - gee, look, Boba Fett did
esape the Sarlacc, but is now somehow a woman simply because there were
enough "strong female leads" in the proper "Star Wars" movies. Darth
Vader magically reaapears, but now wears a pink suit because black is
too depressing. Yoda and Obi-Wan are now twin brothers. etc., etc.
:-\

You just have to look at a lot of the idiotic fan fiction stories (not
to mention some of the official novels!) to know how bad it can get
when outside fools start plonking in their own sily ideas.




> Plus, he has made a lot better movies quantity-wize than Irvin Kershner
> has, who directed the best movie in the world; The Empire Strikes Back.

"Quality" is a irrelevant opinion - everyone has a different one.

I'm talking about the facts, the ridiculously pointless changes. Not to
mention that A) Abrams is supposedly doing so many different things at
once, that he doesn't actually do anything useful other than rubber
stamp his own "famous" name on other people's work (which means even
more chance of ridiculous changes), and B) many of his previous works
start out okay, but end up at best as confused senseless messes (Lots,
Alias, etc.).



> George Lucas has in his lifetime managed to direct one good Sci Fi movie,
> JJ Abrams has made two, so his track record is a lot better than Lucas.

Abrams could have made a bazillion other "good" movies, but that
doesn't mean he can make or knows anything about "Star Wars" movies.
Re: Star Wars Special Editions: Pros & Cons [message #212788 is a reply to message #212636] Sat, 21 December 2013 09:54 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sandman is currently offline  Sandman
Messages: 97
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Member
In article <211220130944254476%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

>>> Whether or not Abrams movies are "better" is a matter of irrelevant
>>> opinion, but it's a fact that they certainly aint "Star Wars" and his
>>> latest movies aren't even "Star Trek" in anything but name and simply
>>> pee all over the real "Star Trek" franchise. :-(
>>
>> I'm no Star Trek fan, but the two movies from Abrams are the only Star Trek
>> movies I've enjoyed watching. Star Trek movies are exceedingly boring, and
>> he made them fun again.
>
> Which basically proves my point. He made movies that weren't really
> "Star Trek". Like all silly "reboots", he ignored and changed
> established facts, etc. In reality he creates a different entity (at
> best a second sub-franchise) hiding behind the same name as the real
> "Star Trek".

Sure, but when George Lucas did this - made movies that weren't Star Wara
and changed established facts and such - the result was three awful movies.
When JJ Abrams did it, the result was two really good Sci Fi movies.

Fact is, "staying true" to something doesn't make it inherently good. If
the prequel trilogy had stayed true to Star Wars (i.e. dropped the entire
midichlorian bullshit and a slew of other original-raping things) they
would still be awful movies without acting, script and story.

>> The last three Star Wars movies were not only boring, but also exceedingly
>> poorly written, poorly directed and with actors that are really good in
>> other movies play cardboard cutouts of themselves.
>>
>> There is no chance that Abrams will make something worse than that.
>
> Yes there is. If he goes down the same route as previously, he'll
> create ill-fitting messes that change established facts, etc. to suit
> his own (and Hollyweird's) silly dreams

Geroege Lucas already did that.

> gee, look, Boba Fett did esape the Sarlacc, but is now somehow a woman
> simply because there were enough "strong female leads" in the proper
> "Star Wars" movies. Darth Vader magically reaapears, but now wears a
> pink suit because black is too depressing. Yoda and Obi-Wan are now twin
> brothers. etc., etc.

Are you seriously saying that what JJ Abrams did to Star Trek is comparable
to Boba Fett surviving and being a woman? Why wasn't Eric Bana's ship in
the first Star Trek movie pink then? You're just constructing wind mills
here to fight.

> You just have to look at a lot of the idiotic fan fiction stories (not
> to mention some of the official novels!) to know how bad it can get
> when outside fools start plonking in their own sily ideas.

Or I'll just look at tthe two very successful and very good Sci Fi movies
that this guy has already made and realize that he's a hundred times better
than the blithering idiot that did the last three Star Wars movies.

>> Plus, he has made a lot better movies quantity-wize than Irvin Kershner
>> has, who directed the best movie in the world; The Empire Strikes Back.
>
> "Quality" is a irrelevant opinion - everyone has a different one.

Which is why I wrote "quantity", not "quality". Abrams has made two good
Sci Fi movies, Kershner has made one.

> I'm talking about the facts, the ridiculously pointless changes. Not to
> mention that A) Abrams is supposedly doing so many different things at
> once, that he doesn't actually do anything useful other than rubber
> stamp his own "famous" name on other people's work (which means even
> more chance of ridiculous changes), and B) many of his previous works
> start out okay, but end up at best as confused senseless messes (Lots,
> Alias, etc.).

Isn't that when he steps away form them and someone else takes over? Maybe
not, I haven't kept track. And TV show production is worlds apart from
movie production.

>> George Lucas has in his lifetime managed to direct one good Sci Fi movie,
>> JJ Abrams has made two, so his track record is a lot better than Lucas.
>
> Abrams could have made a bazillion other "good" movies, but that
> doesn't mean he can make or knows anything about "Star Wars" movies.

Well then, who does? I mean, obvioulsy George Lucas hasn't got an idea
either, so who would?

And Irvin Kerschner, the director of not only the best Star Wars movie, but
the best movie in the history of mankind - what did he know about Star Wars
when he directed it? How was he better suited for the task than Abrams?
Your logic is falling apart.

If "knowledge" about Star Wars is required to direct a good Star Wars
movie, then George Lucas obviously lacks such knowledge, so the question is
- who DOES possess it?

--
Sandman[.net]
Re: Star Wars Special Editions: Pros & Cons [message #212855 is a reply to message #212788] Sat, 21 December 2013 15:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Your Name is currently offline  Your Name
Messages: 910
Registered: September 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <slrnlbbb1g.tcn.mr@irc.sandman.net>, Sandman
<mr@sandman.net> wrote:
> In article <211220130944254476%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name
> <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Whether or not Abrams movies are "better" is a matter of irrelevant
>>>> opinion, but it's a fact that they certainly aint "Star Wars" and his
>>>> latest movies aren't even "Star Trek" in anything but name and simply
>>>> pee all over the real "Star Trek" franchise. :-(
>>>
>>> I'm no Star Trek fan, but the two movies from Abrams are the only Star
>>> Trek movies I've enjoyed watching. Star Trek movies are exceedingly
>>> boring, and he made them fun again.
>>
>> Which basically proves my point. He made movies that weren't really
>> "Star Trek". Like all silly "reboots", he ignored and changed
>> established facts, etc. In reality he creates a different entity (at
>> best a second sub-franchise) hiding behind the same name as the real
>> "Star Trek".
>
> Sure, but when George Lucas did this - made movies that weren't Star Wara
> and changed established facts and such - the result was three awful movies.

Except George Lucas created the franchise - he's the ONLY person who is
allowed to make changes to his ideas.



> When JJ Abrams did it, the result was two really good Sci Fi movies.

Again, pointless opinion, and not the point.




> Fact is, "staying true" to something doesn't make it inherently good. If
> the prequel trilogy had stayed true to Star Wars (i.e. dropped the entire
> midichlorian bullshit and a slew of other original-raping things) they
> would still be awful movies without acting, script and story.

"Staying true" makes it part of the same franchise. Making lots of
ill-fitting silly changes makes it a NEW franchise, so it should NOT
re-use the old one's name.




>>> The last three Star Wars movies were not only boring, but also exceedingly
>>> poorly written, poorly directed and with actors that are really good in
>>> other movies play cardboard cutouts of themselves.
>>>
>>> There is no chance that Abrams will make something worse than that.
>>
>> Yes there is. If he goes down the same route as previously, he'll
>> create ill-fitting messes that change established facts, etc. to suit
>> his own (and Hollyweird's) silly dreams
>
> Geroege Lucas already did that.
>
>> gee, look, Boba Fett did esape the Sarlacc, but is now somehow a woman
>> simply because there were enough "strong female leads" in the proper
>> "Star Wars" movies. Darth Vader magically reaapears, but now wears a
>> pink suit because black is too depressing. Yoda and Obi-Wan are now twin
>> brothers. etc., etc.
>
> Are you seriously saying that what JJ Abrams did to Star Trek is comparable
> to Boba Fett surviving and being a woman? Why wasn't Eric Bana's ship in
> the first Star Trek movie pink then? You're just constructing wind mills
> here to fight.

Abrams had ALL the main characters ta the Starfleet Academy at the smae
time - something that is completely impossible (Chekov, for example,
would have been about 5 years old when Kirk was at the Academy).

As for Boba Fett suddenyl being a women, that came from one of the many
other ridiculous "reboots" - Starbuck in Moore-Ron's so-called
"Battlestar Galactica".




>> You just have to look at a lot of the idiotic fan fiction stories (not
>> to mention some of the official novels!) to know how bad it can get
>> when outside fools start plonking in their own sily ideas.
>
> Or I'll just look at tthe two very successful and very good Sci Fi movies
> that this guy has already made and realize that he's a hundred times better
> than the blithering idiot that did the last three Star Wars movies.

You're completely missing the point of a franchise. As usual around
here the ridiculous opinion-based "I think it's good" excuse makes
everything all right, despite the FACT the obvious reality is that it
is a acompletely different franchise (sometime even down to the poitn
of the people making it saying it is completely different!). It also
proves I'm just wasting my time and you'll never "get it", so you
believe whatever silliness you want to :-\
Re: Star Wars Special Editions: Pros & Cons [message #212923 is a reply to message #212855] Sun, 22 December 2013 03:51 Go to previous message
Sandman is currently offline  Sandman
Messages: 97
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Member
In article <221220130939231330%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

>>> Which basically proves my point. He made movies that weren't really
>>> "Star Trek". Like all silly "reboots", he ignored and changed
>>> established facts, etc. In reality he creates a different entity (at
>>> best a second sub-franchise) hiding behind the same name as the real
>>> "Star Trek".
>>
>> Sure, but when George Lucas did this - made movies that weren't Star Wara
>> and changed established facts and such - the result was three awful movies.
>
> Except George Lucas created the franchise - he's the ONLY person who is
> allowed to make changes to his ideas.

According to whom? He sold those rights, rmemeber?

Anyway, regardless of whatever "rights" he has, he still ruined Star Wars
with three awful movies that everyone is working hard to ignore.

>> When JJ Abrams did it, the result was two really good Sci Fi movies.
>
> Again, pointless opinion, and not the point.

Opinion, yes. Pointless, no. And the point? Well, I think it is the point.
Good movies is what I enjoy. GL has provided no such movies in the last
three decades.

>> Fact is, "staying true" to something doesn't make it inherently good. If
>> the prequel trilogy had stayed true to Star Wars (i.e. dropped the entire
>> midichlorian bullshit and a slew of other original-raping things) they
>> would still be awful movies without acting, script and story.
>
> "Staying true" makes it part of the same franchise. Making lots of
> ill-fitting silly changes makes it a NEW franchise, so it should NOT
> re-use the old one's name.

EXACTLY. Adding midichlorians was a silly ill-fitting change that made it a
NEW franchise that we can ignore. BUt I'm saying that even if GL *HAD*
stayd true to the original franchise and NOT added ill-fitting silly
bullshit, then the movies would have STILL been utterly worthless. Staying
true to the originals doesn't make the movies good.

>>> gee, look, Boba Fett did esape the Sarlacc, but is now somehow a woman
>>> simply because there were enough "strong female leads" in the proper
>>> "Star Wars" movies. Darth Vader magically reaapears, but now wears a
>>> pink suit because black is too depressing. Yoda and Obi-Wan are now twin
>>> brothers. etc., etc.
>>
>> Are you seriously saying that what JJ Abrams did to Star Trek is comparable
>> to Boba Fett surviving and being a woman? Why wasn't Eric Bana's ship in
>> the first Star Trek movie pink then? You're just constructing wind mills
>> here to fight.
>
> Abrams had ALL the main characters ta the Starfleet Academy at the smae
> time - something that is completely impossible (Chekov, for example,
> would have been about 5 years old when Kirk was at the Academy).

But he wasn't wearing pink, now was he?

> As for Boba Fett suddenyl being a women, that came from one of the many
> other ridiculous "reboots" - Starbuck in Moore-Ron's so-called
> "Battlestar Galactica".

Which has what to do with Abrams and Star Wars??

>>> You just have to look at a lot of the idiotic fan fiction stories (not
>>> to mention some of the official novels!) to know how bad it can get
>>> when outside fools start plonking in their own sily ideas.
>>
>> Or I'll just look at tthe two very successful and very good Sci Fi movies
>> that this guy has already made and realize that he's a hundred times better
>> than the blithering idiot that did the last three Star Wars movies.
>
> You're completely missing the point of a franchise.

Of course not.

> As usual around here the ridiculous opinion-based "I think it's good"
> excuse makes everything all right, despite the FACT the obvious reality
> is that it is a acompletely different franchise (sometime even down to
> the poitn of the people making it saying it is completely different!). It
> also proves I'm just wasting my time and you'll never "get it", so you
> believe whatever silliness you want to :-\

Troll on, fanboy.

--
Sandman[.net]
  Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Previous Topic: [Rumoour] Netflix "Cad Bane" TV series?
Next Topic: [NEWS] Dark Horse license ending
Goto Forum:
  

-=] Back to Top [=-
[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ] [ PDF ]

Current Time: Fri Mar 29 06:00:19 EDT 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.07738 seconds