Hurin

Now who's taking the bait? Duke Man-Dress isn't saying anything all of us don't already know. As a Tolkien afficianado from well before the movies were even a gleam in Peter Jackson's eye, and someone who's read The Silmarillion several times and even parts of the History of Middle-earth (early manuscripts edited by Tolkien's son). . . yes, of course there are influences (Beowulf, etc.). Duh! But Togo is obviously overstating things in order to provoke. And thus just making a moron out of himself yet again. The irony of someone (over)stating something so blatantly obious while pontificating on Tolkien to a guy who goes by the name of Hurin and who has a website named Dor-lomin.com is just priceless. Telling us that Tolkien was influenced by prior myths and literature isn't exactly a revelation. Not to mention, your intitial point does nothing to address the post that prompted it (that Lucas used to take the consistency of his world as seriously as Tolkien did his). You're just (lamely) trying to stir up trouble. But, then again, that's just what you do. H

Sorry. I didn't realize. I'll butt out.

I missed Lucas himself, saw the scene with his son, but didn't know that his two daughters were in it. Where were they? I thought the voice of the medical droid that was explaining Padme's condition to Obi-Wan sounded a lot like Lucas. But I didn't see him. H

I realize that. I'm now just having fun with Duke Man-Dress.

For everyday fans, it's not really an issue. Canon only becomes an issue when a fan comes to realize some fact given in a Star Wars product contradicts another well known fact. When such a contradiction occurs, it's really nice to know just how to resolve it using the canon policy. So what you're saying is that real fans are like sheep who need to be told what to think rather than deciding for themselves? I think what he's saying is that an artist's intent must be taken into account. Now, in the case of meanings and artistic influences, I'm not sure the artist can have the final say because he himself may be unaware of subconscious influences. But, in the case of chronology and plot points, I do think the artist has the final say. You can tell the artist that he has been influenced by Shakespeare, and still believe it even if he says he doesn't think he was. But you can't tell George Lucas that Vader wasn't Luke's father or that a ship that he expressly stated was the Millenium Falcon in fact wasn't. He's the ultimate arbiter of what happened and what he intended to convey. But he can't be the ultimate arbiter of what it means to you. H

heh? How did Tolkein "rewrite" someone elses work? he made his mythology.. his own languages.. created back stories... And what was Lucas reimaging? That he borrowed from westerns and samurai movies? Is that what you mean he didn't create star wars universe? if you're saying that in order to create something, the artist has to invent everything on his/her own.. in a vacuum, devoid of all other input... such a thing doesn't exsit... everything comes from something. He's basically repeating the "wisdom" that everything is derivative. It makes him feel intellectual. Just ignore him. I'm already an "ass-pipe" because I had the temerity to disagree with him. Haterist is now an "ass-clown". . . you might be an "ass-munch" just for writing this. Moving on. . .

Considering disagreeing with you will merely results in you calling people names that begin with "ass," I think I'll just forego this debate. Though, I must admit, your bravery in exposing yourself to yet another butt-kicking is commendable. Either that, or your deep-seated need to antagonize me has clouded your judgement. Edit: Typos.

I actually thought the E.T. cameos as background aliens-fillers was sort of a clever little tip of the hat to Spielberg. Just like the case with the Millennium Falcon, that sort of cameo neither adds to nor detracts from the plot of the film, and can be cute and entertaining when you notice them. However, the best cameo appearance I've ever seen in any movie was in "Coming to America" where Eddie Murphy's character dumps this load of cash on two "urban outdoorsmen" who just happen to be Randolph and Mortimer Duke form "Trading Places"...now THAT was classic. I have no problem with the MF being in Sith because it belongs in the universe. And the E.T.s. . . being hard to make out, wouldn't have been so bad. But, unfortunately, they were part of a trend that started with Jedi. But, I've said this before, so please just allow me to quote myself from this thread: But, we're talking about EpIII here. So, I'll leave it at that. If you want to discuss the prior cameos though, I'd be happy to do so over in that thread! But, again, the MF appearing in Sith doesn't cause any trouble for me. . . since it belongs in Star Wars. Best Regards, H

LOL. Perfectly said!

Lucas says that its THE Millennium Falcon. If GL says it's THE MF, than that settles that, but from what's is actually on-screen it's impossible to tell with any certainty. The movie was just a bit south of great...saw it last Wednesday. It's leagues above the first two prequels and a bit better than RotJ, but ANH and ESB still rule as the best SW films. Edit: I thought the "Lucas" being referred to WAS GL; if that isn't the case than the actual identification of the ship we barely see is still open to all sorts of anal debate. This is all hearsay. . . but I think Togo posted a while back that it is stated in the Making of EpIII book that it is the Millenium Falcon and that they even took the time to "reverse age" the appearance of the MF based on its appearance in the OT (removing weathering and impact marks, etc.). If it weren't the MF, but just another similar (YT-1300) freighter, why all the reverse aging process? People can still debate it, of course. But if all that is true, it seems pretty darn clear. But it's not like this is a crucial plot point or anything. For me, if Lucas was willing to put friggin' E.T.s in his films as cameos, I have no problem believing that he put in a "younger" Millenium Falcon.

For everyday fans, it's not really an issue. Canon only becomes an issue when a fan comes to realize some fact given in a Star Wars product contradicts another well known fact. When such a contradiction occurs, it's really nice to know just how to resolve it using the canon policy. Even better one! Even better one!

Funny as hell (make sure your sound is turned on): Cuz it's my United States of Noooooooooooo!

i saw it twice, once at a friends house and then at the theatre, and there is no MF in the flick. i think the jaded SW fans just see what they want to see cause i watched the space battle in slow-mo at my buddies house....sorry homies but i didn't see a MF anywhere. I haven't seen it yet myself (edit: The MF, I've seen the film). So don't shoot the messenger. Just passing on this info. There's a screenshot there. It looks tiny in the shot but is apparently much clearer on the big screen.

I think he looks too old in EpIII to be Wedge (who is young himself in EpIV). So, they're probably different people. Though they may be family relations.

Only if they are ugly. P.S. Hey, I'm not bashing the Prequels or the Special Editions! This all happens in the original RotJ. I'm an equal-opportunity criticizer.

The slapstick in Jedi was the problem in general. The slapstick being used to kill a very dangerous (and cool looking) villain was even worse. And, then, the Sarlaac burped. As Irvin Kirshner said about Empire: "I knew we had to have humor, but not gags." That fell by the wayside in Jedi. And Fett's death epitomizes it. 'Nuff said.

Ya know. . . it's funny you mention that, that's sorta the way I did consider the Jedi to be before the Prequels. I was sorta suprised to find them all centrally located on Coruscant. . . operating out of a central Police HQ "temple." Sorta too much like the SuperFriends and the Hall of Justice. But again, that was just the impression I had based on what had trickled out over the decades. But which now must bend to the will of the Lucas. But, to be monastic, you don't have to wander. The Great Jedi Temple could be seen as a correlary to a medieval monastary. . . the monks in most monastaries didn't own anything, and attemped to live a life of privation. But they had a roof over their heads, food, and a place to work, pray, and write. Which was their role in society (protecting the local community through prayer, and in turn, the local community supported them with necessities). H

Well, if you're saying that Anakin used the force to more precisely control his ship as he smashed it into Obi-Wan's to scrape off some of the buzz droids, I guess that's one way of looking at it. But I think the real question is why, since they were flying straight and level throughout the scene, they couldn't just wave their hand and crush the things with the force, or send them hurtling into space. It's been said that they were already using the Force to such an extent that they didn't have any to spare on those droids. I don't know that I buy that. But, as I said, it's not a huge deal. Just fanboy minutia. H

I thought about making this point too. But Luke does say (to Leia): "I can bring him back, to the good side." So I figured people would jump all over me and equate "good" with "light." But, as usual, I agree with you!

I think the Jedi are shown as not using the Force to control things when Yoda himself in Ep3 says that Jedi do not cling to reality or what they have. But are always willing to let things go. Jedi live essentially monastic existences. I'm not even sure they have any personal possessions. The Sith seem to use the Force ("corrupt" it, you might say) to achieve power over others, amass wealth, and maintain it. We've never seen a Jedi do anything similar. I don't think using the Force to retrieve your lightsaber from the ground and using it to set yourself up as the ruler of the galaxy are the same thing.

Well, hopefully I'm safe! I found (via a quick google) a fuller version of this quote here. And it seems apparent by what Lucas says that he doesn't consider the "Anakin Conception" question to be terribly important when compared to the importance of the "Balance Prophecy." So, he doesn't mind the fans duking it out over this particular issue (Anakin's Conception).

Or, it could be what George Lucas said it was. That reference by Palpatine doesn't have to have any relation to Anakin's birth. Now, I could see the need to assign it that meaning if it had been mentioned with no obvious purpose. But it already serves as the plot device that motivates Anakin to consider the Dark Side. It doesn't need to serve two purposes. And, according to Lucas, it doesn't. I was unable to find the primary document that contains the quote below. I would need the hard copy of the current Rolling Stone (the online version is truncated). But it looks like, after giving us the answer to whether Anakin was created by a Sith (it was "no" BTW), Lucas seems to have thrown this particular question back to the fans. This is from a column where someone is really bashing SW (and the prequels especially): So, you could still be right, Keith. It looks like Lucas has thrown the ball back into your court now. Though, I suppose it could be argued that he let his true view on it slip before, and this is just him having fun with it and trying to stir the pot by re-introducing uncertainty. Can he really replace a definitive answer with a non-answer, thus reversing things and throwing it back to fanboy speculation? Apparently, he can! Man, I hope Lucas never says anything like this about the Balance Prophecy!

Okay. . . so, I was hoping the book explained this, but it didn't. It's a pissy little fanboy detail. But, why didn't Obi-Wan and Anakin just use the force to peel off those little creeper droids from Obi-Wan's fighter in the beginning? And, yes, I realize the answer may just be "because it wouldn't have worked as a scene that way." But I was wondering if anybody has rationalized a plausible reason. H