Hurin

The "how are you" line is classic and believable because Han himself cringes as he says it, knowing that he just screwed up.

He was. So were the ewoks. That's the purpose for them being there. To make kids go "weeee!" and then go out and buy Ewok/Jar Jar pillow cases. Ewoks (and the burping sarlacc pit) mark SW's decline into infantalism. Contrary to what is constantly alleged by those who say that this view is colored by nostalgia, most people that I know think this started with Jedi. . . which should be covered by the nostalgia factor. But oddly, isn't. Of course, we're constantly told by our much cooler friends here that all the Star Wars movies were for young children and that there is no appreciable difference between their cinematic sensibilities. Yet, those who claim this merely assert it and have never pointed out the ANH and ESB correlaries to burp jokes, fart jokes, ewok slapstick, Han trying to blow out a friggin' torch with his breath (thus making him a moron), and/or just about everything the Jar Jar Binks does in TPM. Remember, they're just all the same, because the OT had. . . 3PO! 3PO is their ace in the hole. . . because he swas sometimes prissy. There you go. They're all the same. Bah! Where's my coffee. I'm obviously bitter this morning! Edit: I should mention that AotC partially redeemed things. And things may come full circle again with RotS. Perhaps Lucas wanted to suck in the kiddies and then adjust the target audience along with them as they aged. Because with a PG-13 rating, I'm hoping RotS will be in-line with the tone of ESB or at least ANH. But Jedi and TPM just plainly pander to children to the exclusion of teenagers and adults.

*Hurin, sits pleasantly at his computer, minding his own business. . . when suddenly. . . SMACK*

Well, it got old when all I ever received, year after year, was a gift-wrapped black-and-white photograph of your biceps with strawberry syrup on it. It creeps a kid out.

There comes an age when everyone should stop expecting people to make a big deal over their birthday. That age. . . is twelve. H

You wanna borrow my DVDs? you're a regular around here. I'd trust you to return them. H

I whole-heartedly disagree. There is too much foreshadowing of Vader in Anakin. To me, Lucas has given almost exactly what you have described above. He's antisocial, insecure, arrogant, creepily obsessed with a woman he met at 7 years old. . . etc. As others (and I) have said, I'd have rather seen a noble guy fall. You can't be noble and a maladjusted sociopath at the same time. H

I'll give you that. Tell you the truth, I've always felt a little uneasy about Lando's sudden conversion to sainthood. But then again, it's explained and shown that Han and Lando have had history and some semblance of comraderie and trust, even if momentarily broken. And Lando did begin his redemption immediately after Han's betrayal. Besides, what can he really do against the Dark Lord of the Sith? Yo! Both of you need to quit hatin' on Lando! Exactly what was he supposed to do?!? We really only see him being a jerk for about fifteen minutes. And that's because he's got Vader standing behind the curtain with a gun to his back (figuratively). As soon as he realizes that his people (of Bespin) aren't safe from the Empire no matter what he does, he quickly and decisively decides to risk it all for his friend and a bunch of people he just met. Now, you could read it as him only going to the "good" side after he realized that the "deal" he had made with the Empire had gone too sour. . . but his behavior once he was no longer blackmailed (betraying the Empire, helping Leia, helping with Jabba, and assauling the Death Star) sorta shows him as being ahead of Han on the the whole rogue-to-hero curve. As he said himself to Han as he led them to dinner with ol' Vader "Yeah, I'm responsible now." H

Actually, what's really interesting to me is how much the ARC Troopers in Clone Wars resemble Boba/Jango Fett. Even down to the little "antenna" on the helmet. Good lego shots though. They're soooooo adorable! H

Hell! It was good enough for the Old Republic! Edit: That was a joke. So, please, nobody point out that it is very likely that Palpatine arranged for the creation of the Republic's Clone Army in secret in order to have the tools he needed to provoke (and fight) the Clone Wars.

Hmmmm, would midichlorians come across with the cloning? Good question.

Yep. Don't get me wrong. I do believe that he had a basic structure laid out. Something along the lines of: There was a Republic There were Jedi There were a series "Clone Wars" that doomed the Republic. Darth Vader and Obi-Wan fought together in the Clone Wars. Obi-Wan trained Vader in the ways of the force. Vader goes to the dark side. He kills all the Jedi and helps bring down the Republic. At this point, he started actually worrying about the details and started writing the EpIV script. I do believe, however, that Vader was always intended to be Luke's father. I'll give Lucas that much credit. The way Obi-Wan looks at Luke when Luke asks how his father died. That's no accident. But, as for the pre-history, I really doubt it way any further fleshed out than that. I don't think there was a Naboo. I don't think there was much of anything really other than nebulous images floating around in his head. I mean, anyone even bascially familiar the pre-production of ANH (as you obviously are, bsu) knows just how chaotic the characters were in the beginning. Han and Luke were the same character, etc. Or was that Han and Obi-Wan. . . whatever. The point is, he had the broad strokes of the "history" worked out. I don't think anyone seriously doubts that. But I really don't think he had it worked out any further than what we see in the first chapter (or prologue) of the novelization of ANH (which, if memory serves, actually has the Emperor not being such a bad guy, but at the mercy of special interests. . . though as a primary document from the Star Wars universe, this could be the Emperor's propaganda. . . whoa, I'm geeking out hardcore now!). But there is this myth that I think a lot of people believe that what we're seeing up there on the screen now in the prequels was sorta "pre-destined". . . that even Lucas himself couldn't have changed it because that's what the story was, is, and forever will be. Unless, of course, he makes Special Editions. Possibly. See THIS image. There's annecdotal evidence all the way back to 1978 that they may have been clones. Yes, this could go either way. Though, from the center portion of that article, it looks like elaborate fan fiction to me rather than canon, sanctioned stuff from the ANH release era. Really though, I think the emphasis on clones and how just about every "soldier" in these "wars" we see getting killed are either a clone or a droid. . . well, it's just another example of the "wussification" and "juvenile-ization" of Star Wars. The combatants have been changed to non-human or nearly non-human so that Lucas can please his Hollywood friends who also thought it necessary to remove the guns from the FBI agents in E.T. and replace them with Cell Phones. But, now I'm really starting to rant and there will be mockery of this post's length already as it is. H

Well, doesn't that possibly mean that Lucas chose a poor story to tell as audience's introduction to Anakin? Really, bsu, I'm quite honestly getting confused (and not in the dismissive, condescending way). It almost sounds like you're agreeing with those that say that the character of Anakin has been handled extremely poorly up until this point. But I can't be sure, because I'm pretty sure you were saying the opposite earlier. I, and others, are saying that Anakin should have been altogether a good guy. . . and then fallen into evil. Rather than being an unsympathetic brat, and unsympathetic whiney teenager, and then fallen. I think we're all in agreement here. But we just can't seem to agree that this mistake constitutes two bad movies and overall harm to the series of movies that had the potential to be much cooler. H

That's f'ing hilarious. And I'll complain the whole time while I watch it too! I already have Ep1 and Ep2! H

Well, that's what it is about now. But I personally don't buy this whole myth that's grown up around George Lucas carrying the entire script to all six (or nine) movies in his back pocket since 1970. I don't think Leia was originally envisioned as Luke's sister. I don't think C-3PO was originally envisioned as having been built by Vader. I don't think the stormtroopers were originally envisioned as clones. I don't think Boba Fett was originally envisioned as the clone template. I don't think every major aspect of the entire galaxy's future was originally envisioned as being wound up somehow in Vader and his family. The original trilogy was the story of a Galactic Civil War in which Vader and Luke played major parts. But Vader wasn't the story. Look at how Vader is portrayed in ANH. He's the villain. . . but not really the center of the story. He's just sorta the brute or henchman. He is even Tarkin's subordinate. Well, that's sorta what people are saying: That Anakin comes off as sorta evil to begin with. He's a selfish, spoiled brat of a teenager. . . and isn't likable or even recognizable as much of a hero. If Lucas had portrayed him as a noble warrior, a guardian of "peace and justice in the Old Republic", his fall would be more tragic. Based on the prologue of the book, RotS may try to rectify this a bit. But you can only do so much to undo the damage with exposition and back-story. Most audiences need to see it. Hopefully, according to spoilers, Lucas will manage to squeeze this (IMHO) quite necessary aspect of the character into the movie without jeapordizing the rest of the film. H

You know, bsu legato, when you pull Kent Brockman lines out of your butt like that, I almost wish I didn't hate you so much.

It's that sort of defensiveness that he was hoping for. The proper response is: "I'm not half as gay as the guy who f--ks me!" Anyways, A1 has gotten his way. He couldn't make any decent arguments past the initial page or two. . . so he came back in to wilfullyl and thoroughly derail it. I'm obviously also reponsible. My apologies. H

No, you obviously don't get it. Where did I call you gay?!? You read male fitness/body building magazines, right? Whether you use them for arousal or not. . . those are pretty universally understood to be gay porn. Most people who buy those magazines regularly aren't buying them for the workout tips. Sorry, it's true. But I'm sure you just read them for the articles! H

Well, only predictable because it's recycled and contrived. Poor Sketch, is he now disowned? Will we have to fight in a near-future arena for your affection as our father? Am I in your will now?!? Will I get a lifetime supply of body-oil and a house full of full-length mirrors and gay porn when the hemhorroids you have from all that weight lifting finally burst and you bleed to death from you butt? H

And within seconds. . . He was so excited over his own wit, he stumbled all over himself and typoed it.

What a pathetic attempt to generate another tagline for your signature!

Majesitc, There is no such thing as unbiased journalism. So your search for ever-elusive proof from an "independent review" will be fruitless. Those that you look to for proof are biased themselves. This guy puts it best. We both need to shut up now. Feel free to rant away. I'm done (and not a standard Hurin-esque "I'm done until you piss me off again and then I'll write two more pages". . . I'm really done). H

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard! Because they aren't American they can't be biased?!? They still have a point of view. . . and it seeps into their reporting whether intentionally or not. You want links? Here you go. I'll send you more via PM if you want. But why don't you just google? Trust me, there's plenty. But asking for "hard evidence" of bias is ridiculous and illustrates your naivete where politics are concerned. You can't prove bias because you can't know for certain what is in someone's head and what motivates them. But, just as you smell bias when you see Fox News, conservatives have been smelling bias for the last twenty years while watching the major network and CNN. You can't prove Fox News bias, just as I can't prove CNN bias. Saying that it is "well documented" proves nothing. . . because it's always "well documented" by the other side. Conservatives have been charging "media bias" for decades. . . citing surveys showing 70% of reporters are democrats, etc. . . but they're always dismissed by the other side. If there were a way to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, it would have been done. And, in case you haven't noticed, CNN and Fox News report on the exact same thing about 95% of the time. The difference is how they spin it. If you don't think CNN is putting any spin on their stories, then I can't help you. H P.S. haterist, yes, I realize this is just what A1 wanted. But, this guy is pissing me off.

Best joke I've heard all day! Oh so you have already shown us what a pretentious fake artistic SW fan (which really means general hand job) and you are now expand your loserness by ripping on a multibillion dollar news organization. FN is the first organization that doesn't cater to the pussies of this country. I guess your definition of pussy is anybody who gets their news from multiple news organizations with a more centrist and balanced approach (CNN, Nightline, New York Times, BBC News, Washington Post). Fox News is fairly well documented as being primarily right-leaning, filling their programs with punditry and generally losing all credibility as being "fair and balanced". That's why they changed their tagline recently to "we report, you decide". I'm not going to sink to your level of insult, I'm not as weak as you are in that respect. Signed, Pretentious Fake Artistic SW fan, aka General Handjob. You're both morons: A1, first, you're being a jerk by intentionally injecting politics into this thread in yet another attempt to throw it into mayhem. But you're always a jerk, and so many love you for it (oddly). . . so we'll let it slide. But, on the merits (such as they are) of what you said: Even conservatives agree that Fox News is conservatively biased. I'm conservative, and I see it. Even Fox News itself sorta "winks" from time to time. Yes, they have liberals on their shows. . . but they do so in the same "token" sense that other news organizations have conservative hosts and guests. . . which brings us to. . . Majestic: Dude. . . you just listed the five most liberal news outlets that are widely available to the US public. That's not balance. I'm surprised you didn't list NPR! At least conservatives have the decency (for the most part) to admit the existence of news sources that are biased in their direction. But Liberals love to declare that all their news sources are unbiased. . . because the news sources say they are! To sum up: Fox News is biased. But no more biased towards the right than CNN always has been towards the Left. And don't even get me started on CBS/NBC/ABC. Until the recent diversification of US News sources, they were essentially the same news service, parroting whatever the New York Times decided to print that day. Oh, and Fox News has always used the "we report, you decide" tagline alongside others. That's not new. . . sigh. H

Blaine23 once again demonstrates that he has superior taste. I'm completely confident in saying that The Office is the best television comedy every produced. Though, really, the US is hamstrung where television is concerned because the original BBC The Office couldn't be shown on primetime US television. It would have to be on basic cable (it does play on BBC America) or possibly even HBO. A prime example of what is lost, of course, when you try to dumb it down, Americanize it, and make it less ribald, is well, NBC's rather sad (though sometimes entertaining) knock-off series. Sadly, we visited my parents a few weeks ago, and they had just seen the NBC premier. I immediately went out and bought the full DVD set and had them watch a few. My mom saw that it was infinitely better. . . but sadly, my Dad seemed to appreciate the NBC version better. I like to think I got my sense of humor from my mom and watching a lot of Late Night w/ David Letterman (back before he moved to CBS and began sucking) when I was in Junior High. I've tried to share The Office with a lot of people. It's amazing how you can't really predict who will "get it" and who won't. And, now, with the NBC version, we're once again stuck in that whole: "I like The Office, but not the NBC version" in the same way Star Trek fans were forced to say: "I like Star Trek, the original, not the new stuff". . . and, The Simpons fans need to say: "I love the Simpsons, but not the last few years. . ." etc. Best line from The Office didn't even make the final production because Ricky Jervais (David Brent) couldn't even keep a straight face. It's during the first "making of" documentary. That whole bit about the "anti-laugh". . . I don't think I've ever laughed harder than that. Ms. Hurin thought I had lost it. Oh, and whenever Ms. Hurin is ever in a bad mood, all I have to do is play her the full-lenght video of David Brent singing "If You Don't Know Me By Now." Hey, Graham, can we have a The Office thread? H P.S. Oh, and Blaine, if you need another copy of The Office, let me know. My parents didn't like it enough to keep the DVDs I bought them. So I have an entire extra set!