Please do us a favor Re: Rose

Replies

  • TVF
    22355 posts Member
    Boo wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    Boo wrote: »
    7thru9suck wrote: »
    I would like to feed disney to the wolverines, George should have never sold nor Stan/marvel to that evil machine. Sony would have been a better and much safer to characters bet, alas here we are. Suffer we must with a smile and good nature......

    The prequels were just as bad as the sequel trilogy. They're infamously terrible. Disney didn't ruin Star Wars. George Lucas did that in 1999.

    Keep in mind Lucas had virtually nothing to do with the film in the series that is universally considered the best (ESB). He got lucky with ANH (and even then it had to be saved by a stellar editor). Also, except for the terrible decision to change the Wookies to Ewoks in ROTJ, Lucas had almost nothing to do with that film, too.

    He directed four Star Wars films. Three of them are unwatchable. The other one is barely standing the test of time.

    George ruined star wars in 1999? Hahahahahah - no.


    1997

    Again, No.

    Granted some changes made were diabolical. Each movie had a bad change that really irked me, as follows:

    1. ANH - Greedo now shoots first, while Han awkwardly dodges with his head, looking very much like a Thunderbird puppet. Completely took away the swagger of Han's scoundrel character.
    2. TESB - I thought is was more suspenseful and creative not seeing the Wampa.
    3. ROTJ - Theband in Jabba's palace. CGI was terrible and we really didn't need a "musical number" in star wars, at least not that.

    You've missed the point. It's not that he created the Special Editions, it's that he buried the originals. 1997 was just the beginning that lead to it.
    TVF's guild is recruiting. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • TVF
    22355 posts Member
    edited December 2019
    TVF wrote: »
    Boo wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    Boo wrote: »
    7thru9suck wrote: »
    I would like to feed disney to the wolverines, George should have never sold nor Stan/marvel to that evil machine. Sony would have been a better and much safer to characters bet, alas here we are. Suffer we must with a smile and good nature......

    The prequels were just as bad as the sequel trilogy. They're infamously terrible. Disney didn't ruin Star Wars. George Lucas did that in 1999.

    Keep in mind Lucas had virtually nothing to do with the film in the series that is universally considered the best (ESB). He got lucky with ANH (and even then it had to be saved by a stellar editor). Also, except for the terrible decision to change the Wookies to Ewoks in ROTJ, Lucas had almost nothing to do with that film, too.

    He directed four Star Wars films. Three of them are unwatchable. The other one is barely standing the test of time.

    George ruined star wars in 1999? Hahahahahah - no.


    1997

    Again, No.

    Granted some changes made were diabolical. Each movie had a bad change that really irked me, as follows:

    1. ANH - Greedo now shoots first, while Han awkwardly dodges with his head, looking very much like a Thunderbird puppet. Completely took away the swagger of Han's scoundrel character.
    2. TESB - I thought is was more suspenseful and creative not seeing the Wampa.
    3. ROTJ - Theband in Jabba's palace. CGI was terrible and we really didn't need a "musical number" in star wars, at least not that.

    You've missed

    Reported.
    TVF's guild is recruiting. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • Boo
    4004 posts Member
    TVF wrote: »
    Boo wrote: »
    Stenun wrote: »
    (culminating in that Leia surviving the vacuum of space nonsense).

    Not nonsense, the lethality of the "vacuum of space" has long been overstated in other movies and books but the truth of the matter is that most people would survive for about two minutes or so. They would also pass out after about 15-20 seconds but they could still be rescued within two minutes and have a good chance at a full recovery.
    Google it.

    In fact, I did google it and here is one of the results: https://scientificamerican.com/article/survival-in-space-unprotected-possible/

    So given that Leia is a trained Force User and given the other flights of fancy that we allow such characters to get away with, I really have never accepted this particular criticism of TLJ as it seems to be to be based on the viewers misconceptions of space rather than anything the movie does wrong.

    Seconds actually -

    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2007/08/can-you-survive-in-space-without-a-spacesuit.html

    Slate???????

    Is this better?

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/survival-in-space-unprotected-possible/

    Minutes to die, but only seconds to lose consciousness - and that is the key part, once your not conscious you can do nothing to save yourself.

    The Leia scene in TLJ didn't bother me though when people bring this argument up, as you don't know if the force also granted some sort of temporary protective shield over her, as well as draw her into safety.
  • Gifafi
    4023 posts Member
    Boo wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    Boo wrote: »
    Stenun wrote: »
    (culminating in that Leia surviving the vacuum of space nonsense).

    Not nonsense, the lethality of the "vacuum of space" has long been overstated in other movies and books but the truth of the matter is that most people would survive for about two minutes or so. They would also pass out after about 15-20 seconds but they could still be rescued within two minutes and have a good chance at a full recovery.
    Google it.

    In fact, I did google it and here is one of the results: https://scientificamerican.com/article/survival-in-space-unprotected-possible/

    So given that Leia is a trained Force User and given the other flights of fancy that we allow such characters to get away with, I really have never accepted this particular criticism of TLJ as it seems to be to be based on the viewers misconceptions of space rather than anything the movie does wrong.

    Seconds actually -

    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2007/08/can-you-survive-in-space-without-a-spacesuit.html

    Slate???????

    Is this better?

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/survival-in-space-unprotected-possible/

    Minutes to die, but only seconds to lose consciousness - and that is the key part, once your not conscious you can do nothing to save yourself.

    The Leia scene in TLJ didn't bother me though when people bring this argument up, as you don't know if the force also granted some sort of temporary protective shield over her, as well as draw her into safety.

    ah, people found the part where the daughter of the laser-sword-wielding space magician's daughter survived in outer space for a bit to be unrealistic?
    Maybe End Game isn't for you
  • Boo
    4004 posts Member
    Gifafi wrote: »
    Boo wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    Boo wrote: »
    Stenun wrote: »
    (culminating in that Leia surviving the vacuum of space nonsense).

    Not nonsense, the lethality of the "vacuum of space" has long been overstated in other movies and books but the truth of the matter is that most people would survive for about two minutes or so. They would also pass out after about 15-20 seconds but they could still be rescued within two minutes and have a good chance at a full recovery.
    Google it.

    In fact, I did google it and here is one of the results: https://scientificamerican.com/article/survival-in-space-unprotected-possible/

    So given that Leia is a trained Force User and given the other flights of fancy that we allow such characters to get away with, I really have never accepted this particular criticism of TLJ as it seems to be to be based on the viewers misconceptions of space rather than anything the movie does wrong.

    Seconds actually -

    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2007/08/can-you-survive-in-space-without-a-spacesuit.html

    Slate???????

    Is this better?

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/survival-in-space-unprotected-possible/

    Minutes to die, but only seconds to lose consciousness - and that is the key part, once your not conscious you can do nothing to save yourself.

    The Leia scene in TLJ didn't bother me though when people bring this argument up, as you don't know if the force also granted some sort of temporary protective shield over her, as well as draw her into safety.

    ah, people found the part where the daughter of the laser-sword-wielding space magician's daughter survived in outer space for a bit to be unrealistic?

    Apparently so. Unrealistic in terms of star wars...no. At least I didn't think so.

    But was it silly - YES. lol
  • 7thru9suck wrote: »
    I would like to feed disney to the wolverines, George should have never sold nor Stan/marvel to that evil machine. Sony would have been a better and much safer to characters bet, alas here we are. Suffer we must with a smile and good nature......

    The prequels were just as bad as the sequel trilogy. They're infamously terrible. Disney didn't ruin Star Wars. George Lucas did that in 1999.

    Keep in mind Lucas had virtually nothing to do with the film in the series that is universally considered the best (ESB). He got lucky with ANH (and even then it had to be saved by a stellar editor). Also, except for the terrible decision to change the Wookies to Ewoks in ROTJ, Lucas had almost nothing to do with that film, too.

    He directed four Star Wars films. Three of them are unwatchable. The other one is barely standing the test of time.

    I strongly disagree, episodes 1-3 are far better than the garbage Disney has put out there. For one they felt like star wars. If George was involved in their conception they would have felt more like a star wars movie and not just a cash cow. He wouldn't have to direct or do casting, you have to keep in mind he created this that we love. Disney is the worst possible outcome that will give you loads of progs and astronomically priced lego and merch all for the sake of profits. Convoluted stories that end up making no sense, so far their scripts have been the outcome of arguing with a 4 year old about a game he stole the idea of, changed the rules so he wins all the time and then explains to you that he always gets to win just because.... why? Cause that's why.. screw that nonsense. I am not criticizing the new actors either they did what they could with the garbage they were given.
  • TVF
    22355 posts Member
    edited December 2019
    7thru9suck wrote: »
    7thru9suck wrote: »
    I would like to feed disney to the wolverines, George should have never sold nor Stan/marvel to that evil machine. Sony would have been a better and much safer to characters bet, alas here we are. Suffer we must with a smile and good nature......

    The prequels were just as bad as the sequel trilogy. They're infamously terrible. Disney didn't ruin Star Wars. George Lucas did that in 1999.

    Keep in mind Lucas had virtually nothing to do with the film in the series that is universally considered the best (ESB). He got lucky with ANH (and even then it had to be saved by a stellar editor). Also, except for the terrible decision to change the Wookies to Ewoks in ROTJ, Lucas had almost nothing to do with that film, too.

    He directed four Star Wars films. Three of them are unwatchable. The other one is barely standing the test of time.

    episodes 1-3 ....felt like video games.

    FTFY
    TVF's guild is recruiting. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • Episodes 1-3 felt like video games? Sad to hear that is the experience you had. I enjoyed the advancement in film tech, a big role and first pavement to where we are today. To this I will applaud ol Georgy boy till my final day!! The new ones lacked everything that is considered Star Wars, save for the force and original characters, plus the title of course. The member berries did not work on me, swing and a miss JJ/Rian/Kennedy.
  • Plus I still have the **** original trilogy on VHS, I am aging just as fast as those tapes damnit!
  • TVF
    22355 posts Member
    7thru9suck wrote: »
    Episodes 1-3 felt like video games?

    Yes
    TVF's guild is recruiting. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • ROTJ was the last SW movie made. The rest are covers..
    Leader: Grey Area 51 - My Squads: https://swgoh.gg/p/716522998/
  • So if 1-3 felt like video games, what do 7-9 feel like?..... betrayal? Or just a cold slap to the face haha
  • Boo
    4004 posts Member
    7thru9suck wrote: »
    So if 1-3 felt like video games, what do 7-9 feel like?..... betrayal? Or just a cold slap to the face haha

    7-9 feel like a pregnant woman going into labour, expecting to birth a beautiful new life, but instead just needed a really big poo.
  • Well we do agree on the new trilogy, that whole executive team should be fired and forgotten about.
  • TVF wrote: »
    7thru9suck wrote: »
    7thru9suck wrote: »
    I would like to feed disney to the wolverines, George should have never sold nor Stan/marvel to that evil machine. Sony would have been a better and much safer to characters bet, alas here we are. Suffer we must with a smile and good nature......

    The prequels were just as bad as the sequel trilogy. They're infamously terrible. Disney didn't ruin Star Wars. George Lucas did that in 1999.

    Keep in mind Lucas had virtually nothing to do with the film in the series that is universally considered the best (ESB). He got lucky with ANH (and even then it had to be saved by a stellar editor). Also, except for the terrible decision to change the Wookies to Ewoks in ROTJ, Lucas had almost nothing to do with that film, too.

    He directed four Star Wars films. Three of them are unwatchable. The other one is barely standing the test of time.

    episodes 1-3 ....felt like video games.

    FTFY

    You gave me this acronym once too... What does it mean?
  • TVF
    22355 posts Member
    TVF wrote: »
    7thru9suck wrote: »
    7thru9suck wrote: »
    I would like to feed disney to the wolverines, George should have never sold nor Stan/marvel to that evil machine. Sony would have been a better and much safer to characters bet, alas here we are. Suffer we must with a smile and good nature......

    The prequels were just as bad as the sequel trilogy. They're infamously terrible. Disney didn't ruin Star Wars. George Lucas did that in 1999.

    Keep in mind Lucas had virtually nothing to do with the film in the series that is universally considered the best (ESB). He got lucky with ANH (and even then it had to be saved by a stellar editor). Also, except for the terrible decision to change the Wookies to Ewoks in ROTJ, Lucas had almost nothing to do with that film, too.

    He directed four Star Wars films. Three of them are unwatchable. The other one is barely standing the test of time.

    episodes 1-3 ....felt like video games.

    FTFY

    You gave me this acronym once too... What does it mean?

    Google.
    TVF's guild is recruiting. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • TVF wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    7thru9suck wrote: »
    7thru9suck wrote: »
    I would like to feed disney to the wolverines, George should have never sold nor Stan/marvel to that evil machine. Sony would have been a better and much safer to characters bet, alas here we are. Suffer we must with a smile and good nature......

    The prequels were just as bad as the sequel trilogy. They're infamously terrible. Disney didn't ruin Star Wars. George Lucas did that in 1999.

    Keep in mind Lucas had virtually nothing to do with the film in the series that is universally considered the best (ESB). He got lucky with ANH (and even then it had to be saved by a stellar editor). Also, except for the terrible decision to change the Wookies to Ewoks in ROTJ, Lucas had almost nothing to do with that film, too.

    He directed four Star Wars films. Three of them are unwatchable. The other one is barely standing the test of time.

    episodes 1-3 ....felt like video games.

    FTFY

    You gave me this acronym once too... What does it mean?

    Google.

    That required more work than I normally like to do... But now I know. Thanks....google...
  • Boo wrote: »
    7thru9suck wrote: »
    I would like to feed disney to the wolverines, George should have never sold nor Stan/marvel to that evil machine. Sony would have been a better and much safer to characters bet, alas here we are. Suffer we must with a smile and good nature......

    The prequels were just as bad as the sequel trilogy. They're infamously terrible. Disney didn't ruin Star Wars. George Lucas did that in 1999.

    Keep in mind Lucas had virtually nothing to do with the film in the series that is universally considered the best (ESB). He got lucky with ANH (and even then it had to be saved by a stellar editor). Also, except for the terrible decision to change the Wookies to Ewoks in ROTJ, Lucas had almost nothing to do with that film, too.

    He directed four Star Wars films. Three of them are unwatchable. The other one is barely standing the test of time.

    George ruined star wars in 1999? Hahahahahah - no. He made a not very good star wars movie, then spent the others on course correction (cutting out Jar Jar and no more Lil' Ani business). The political world established as well as how the Jedi are, what Anakin is, the death of Jedi and the Sith moving in the shadows with their reveal of Darth Maul was all very well done - hands down better than anything the sequel trilogy has done.

    There was also nothing lore breaking about the PT. Was the PT magnificent? Of course not, it certainly could have been done better, but the ST sinks star wars below that of the Holiday Special, by far.

    Now you go on to say George had virtually nothing to do with the OT after ANH? You know he wrote all of them and consulted on all of them, loads of decisions going on with those movies came from George.

    The Wookies were changed to Ewoks because finding people like Mayhew was difficult - little people were easier.

    George was the man that connected all the stories together and had an overall idea as to how he wanted them to go.

    Yes he had producers, people he had complete the screenplays (for his approval) and hired directors that he trusted such as Kershner. He was very involved in the OT but did not want to take the helm of it all as he nearly had a heart attack when making ANH.

    Come the PT, he had the money, control and power to completely run the show - and I think this is where he should have been more humble, as he was with working on the OT to have additional sources to help steer the ship - not surrounding himself with "yes men".

    He needed Gary Kurtz to be the guy to bounce ideas off of. Kurtz co-directed ANH and ESB (Hollywood rules make it very difficult for credit to be given to more than one director). In ANH it was Kurtz who worked with the younger actors coaching them and preparing them for filming. Yes, Lucas wrote the story for ESB but he handed off the story to the screenplay writers and checked out. Kurtz directed much of ESB but Hollywood has weird rules about directing credit especially when there are more than two directors and ESB has three to five depending on who you ask.

    The prequels are terrible. The dialogue is infamously bad. And they did break lore: midichlororines, timeframe between RoTS and ANH . . . it was a mess. Unwatchable movies. Just like the sequel trilogy. Except at least TFA is watchable.
  • Nikoms565 wrote: »
    7thru9suck wrote: »
    I would like to feed disney to the wolverines, George should have never sold nor Stan/marvel to that evil machine. Sony would have been a better and much safer to characters bet, alas here we are. Suffer we must with a smile and good nature......

    The prequels were just as bad as the sequel trilogy. They're infamously terrible. Disney didn't ruin Star Wars. George Lucas did that in 1999.

    Keep in mind Lucas had virtually nothing to do with the film in the series that is universally considered the best (ESB). He got lucky with ANH (and even then it had to be saved by a stellar editor). Also, except for the terrible decision to change the Wookies to Ewoks in ROTJ, Lucas had almost nothing to do with that film, too.

    He directed four Star Wars films. Three of them are unwatchable. The other one is barely standing the test of time.

    So you hate the prequels and the sequals....and detest George Lucas. You're here.....because?

    I don't hate Lucas but Gary Kurtz had as much to with ANH as Lucas did and Kurtz did more than Lucas on ESB. The biggest mistake Lucas made was not having Kurtz involved in the prequels.

    I'm here because I love most of the OT, the TCW and Rebels animated series and the Mandalorian. Plus Rogue One and Solo were great films. Rogue One by itself is better that the prequels combined. And Solo was the first Star Wars movie to feel truly fresh since ANH. All the hours of the animated series alone far outweigh a mere six movies.
  • 7thru9suck
    23 posts Member
    edited December 2019
    All of the new movies were garbage including Solo and Rogue One, cheesy with the cgi de aging. That movie was the worst. 1-3 were way better than that nonsense.
  • TVF wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    7thru9suck wrote: »
    7thru9suck wrote: »
    I would like to feed disney to the wolverines, George should have never sold nor Stan/marvel to that evil machine. Sony would have been a better and much safer to characters bet, alas here we are. Suffer we must with a smile and good nature......

    The prequels were just as bad as the sequel trilogy. They're infamously terrible. Disney didn't ruin Star Wars. George Lucas did that in 1999.

    Keep in mind Lucas had virtually nothing to do with the film in the series that is universally considered the best (ESB). He got lucky with ANH (and even then it had to be saved by a stellar editor). Also, except for the terrible decision to change the Wookies to Ewoks in ROTJ, Lucas had almost nothing to do with that film, too.

    He directed four Star Wars films. Three of them are unwatchable. The other one is barely standing the test of time.

    episodes 1-3 ....felt like video games.

    FTFY

    You gave me this acronym once too... What does it mean?

    Google.

    That required more work than I normally like to do... But now I know. Thanks....google...

    LMGTFY
    I reject your reality and substitute my own.
  • TVF
    22355 posts Member
    7thru9suck wrote: »
    All of the new movies were garbage including Solo and Rogue One, cheesy with the cgi de aging. That movie was the worst. 1-3 were way better than that nonsense.

    k.gif
    TVF's guild is recruiting. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • 7thru9suck wrote: »
    All of the new movies were garbage including Solo and Rogue One, cheesy with the cgi de aging. That movie was the worst. 1-3 were way better than that nonsense.

    It's as if you haven't seen the prequels. I guess dialogue isn't a big concern to you.

    Who cares about de-aging CGI? How is that any different than make-up and prosthetics?
  • 7thru9suck
    23 posts Member
    edited December 2019
    Just looks too campy, I have seen the prequels and they are far better than the garbage Disney churns out. Everything is far too rushed and they leave no time for anything other than a smash and grab at the box office. That is exactly how you segregate a fan base and forfeit more profits in the end game. The prequels were full of awesome battles, a few poor character choices and some dialogue but overall I left feeling like I watched a Star Wars movie. When I watch what Disney is putting out other than Mando, I feel robbed. I think they should give Jon a go for the next movies, I may change my tune 🤷‍♂️ for now Disney is [Removed - CM].
    Post edited by EA_Joz on
  • Boo
    4004 posts Member
    Boo wrote: »
    7thru9suck wrote: »
    I would like to feed disney to the wolverines, George should have never sold nor Stan/marvel to that evil machine. Sony would have been a better and much safer to characters bet, alas here we are. Suffer we must with a smile and good nature......

    The prequels were just as bad as the sequel trilogy. They're infamously terrible. Disney didn't ruin Star Wars. George Lucas did that in 1999.

    Keep in mind Lucas had virtually nothing to do with the film in the series that is universally considered the best (ESB). He got lucky with ANH (and even then it had to be saved by a stellar editor). Also, except for the terrible decision to change the Wookies to Ewoks in ROTJ, Lucas had almost nothing to do with that film, too.

    He directed four Star Wars films. Three of them are unwatchable. The other one is barely standing the test of time.

    George ruined star wars in 1999? Hahahahahah - no. He made a not very good star wars movie, then spent the others on course correction (cutting out Jar Jar and no more Lil' Ani business). The political world established as well as how the Jedi are, what Anakin is, the death of Jedi and the Sith moving in the shadows with their reveal of Darth Maul was all very well done - hands down better than anything the sequel trilogy has done.

    There was also nothing lore breaking about the PT. Was the PT magnificent? Of course not, it certainly could have been done better, but the ST sinks star wars below that of the Holiday Special, by far.

    Now you go on to say George had virtually nothing to do with the OT after ANH? You know he wrote all of them and consulted on all of them, loads of decisions going on with those movies came from George.

    The Wookies were changed to Ewoks because finding people like Mayhew was difficult - little people were easier.

    George was the man that connected all the stories together and had an overall idea as to how he wanted them to go.

    Yes he had producers, people he had complete the screenplays (for his approval) and hired directors that he trusted such as Kershner. He was very involved in the OT but did not want to take the helm of it all as he nearly had a heart attack when making ANH.

    Come the PT, he had the money, control and power to completely run the show - and I think this is where he should have been more humble, as he was with working on the OT to have additional sources to help steer the ship - not surrounding himself with "yes men".

    He needed Gary Kurtz to be the guy to bounce ideas off of. Kurtz co-directed ANH and ESB (Hollywood rules make it very difficult for credit to be given to more than one director). In ANH it was Kurtz who worked with the younger actors coaching them and preparing them for filming. Yes, Lucas wrote the story for ESB but he handed off the story to the screenplay writers and checked out. Kurtz directed much of ESB but Hollywood has weird rules about directing credit especially when there are more than two directors and ESB has three to five depending on who you ask.

    The prequels are terrible. The dialogue is infamously bad. And they did break lore: midichlororines, timeframe between RoTS and ANH . . . it was a mess. Unwatchable movies. Just like the sequel trilogy. Except at least TFA is watchable.

    Think whatever you like as long as it makes you sleep better at night.
  • TVF
    22355 posts Member
    Boo wrote: »
    Boo wrote: »
    7thru9suck wrote: »
    I would like to feed disney to the wolverines, George should have never sold nor Stan/marvel to that evil machine. Sony would have been a better and much safer to characters bet, alas here we are. Suffer we must with a smile and good nature......

    The prequels were just as bad as the sequel trilogy. They're infamously terrible. Disney didn't ruin Star Wars. George Lucas did that in 1999.

    Keep in mind Lucas had virtually nothing to do with the film in the series that is universally considered the best (ESB). He got lucky with ANH (and even then it had to be saved by a stellar editor). Also, except for the terrible decision to change the Wookies to Ewoks in ROTJ, Lucas had almost nothing to do with that film, too.

    He directed four Star Wars films. Three of them are unwatchable. The other one is barely standing the test of time.

    George ruined star wars in 1999? Hahahahahah - no. He made a not very good star wars movie, then spent the others on course correction (cutting out Jar Jar and no more Lil' Ani business). The political world established as well as how the Jedi are, what Anakin is, the death of Jedi and the Sith moving in the shadows with their reveal of Darth Maul was all very well done - hands down better than anything the sequel trilogy has done.

    There was also nothing lore breaking about the PT. Was the PT magnificent? Of course not, it certainly could have been done better, but the ST sinks star wars below that of the Holiday Special, by far.

    Now you go on to say George had virtually nothing to do with the OT after ANH? You know he wrote all of them and consulted on all of them, loads of decisions going on with those movies came from George.

    The Wookies were changed to Ewoks because finding people like Mayhew was difficult - little people were easier.

    George was the man that connected all the stories together and had an overall idea as to how he wanted them to go.

    Yes he had producers, people he had complete the screenplays (for his approval) and hired directors that he trusted such as Kershner. He was very involved in the OT but did not want to take the helm of it all as he nearly had a heart attack when making ANH.

    Come the PT, he had the money, control and power to completely run the show - and I think this is where he should have been more humble, as he was with working on the OT to have additional sources to help steer the ship - not surrounding himself with "yes men".

    He needed Gary Kurtz to be the guy to bounce ideas off of. Kurtz co-directed ANH and ESB (Hollywood rules make it very difficult for credit to be given to more than one director). In ANH it was Kurtz who worked with the younger actors coaching them and preparing them for filming. Yes, Lucas wrote the story for ESB but he handed off the story to the screenplay writers and checked out. Kurtz directed much of ESB but Hollywood has weird rules about directing credit especially when there are more than two directors and ESB has three to five depending on who you ask.

    The prequels are terrible. The dialogue is infamously bad. And they did break lore: midichlororines, timeframe between RoTS and ANH . . . it was a mess. Unwatchable movies. Just like the sequel trilogy. Except at least TFA is watchable.

    Think whatever you like as long as it makes you sleep better at night.

    You also.
    TVF's guild is recruiting. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • Boo
    4004 posts Member
    TVF wrote: »
    Boo wrote: »
    Boo wrote: »
    7thru9suck wrote: »
    I would like to feed disney to the wolverines, George should have never sold nor Stan/marvel to that evil machine. Sony would have been a better and much safer to characters bet, alas here we are. Suffer we must with a smile and good nature......

    The prequels were just as bad as the sequel trilogy. They're infamously terrible. Disney didn't ruin Star Wars. George Lucas did that in 1999.

    Keep in mind Lucas had virtually nothing to do with the film in the series that is universally considered the best (ESB). He got lucky with ANH (and even then it had to be saved by a stellar editor). Also, except for the terrible decision to change the Wookies to Ewoks in ROTJ, Lucas had almost nothing to do with that film, too.

    He directed four Star Wars films. Three of them are unwatchable. The other one is barely standing the test of time.

    George ruined star wars in 1999? Hahahahahah - no. He made a not very good star wars movie, then spent the others on course correction (cutting out Jar Jar and no more Lil' Ani business). The political world established as well as how the Jedi are, what Anakin is, the death of Jedi and the Sith moving in the shadows with their reveal of Darth Maul was all very well done - hands down better than anything the sequel trilogy has done.

    There was also nothing lore breaking about the PT. Was the PT magnificent? Of course not, it certainly could have been done better, but the ST sinks star wars below that of the Holiday Special, by far.

    Now you go on to say George had virtually nothing to do with the OT after ANH? You know he wrote all of them and consulted on all of them, loads of decisions going on with those movies came from George.

    The Wookies were changed to Ewoks because finding people like Mayhew was difficult - little people were easier.

    George was the man that connected all the stories together and had an overall idea as to how he wanted them to go.

    Yes he had producers, people he had complete the screenplays (for his approval) and hired directors that he trusted such as Kershner. He was very involved in the OT but did not want to take the helm of it all as he nearly had a heart attack when making ANH.

    Come the PT, he had the money, control and power to completely run the show - and I think this is where he should have been more humble, as he was with working on the OT to have additional sources to help steer the ship - not surrounding himself with "yes men".

    He needed Gary Kurtz to be the guy to bounce ideas off of. Kurtz co-directed ANH and ESB (Hollywood rules make it very difficult for credit to be given to more than one director). In ANH it was Kurtz who worked with the younger actors coaching them and preparing them for filming. Yes, Lucas wrote the story for ESB but he handed off the story to the screenplay writers and checked out. Kurtz directed much of ESB but Hollywood has weird rules about directing credit especially when there are more than two directors and ESB has three to five depending on who you ask.

    The prequels are terrible. The dialogue is infamously bad. And they did break lore: midichlororines, timeframe between RoTS and ANH . . . it was a mess. Unwatchable movies. Just like the sequel trilogy. Except at least TFA is watchable.

    Think whatever you like as long as it makes you sleep better at night.

    You also.

    Except my screen name isn't "Darth Sleepy", lol
  • Boo wrote: »
    Boo wrote: »
    7thru9suck wrote: »
    I would like to feed disney to the wolverines, George should have never sold nor Stan/marvel to that evil machine. Sony would have been a better and much safer to characters bet, alas here we are. Suffer we must with a smile and good nature......

    The prequels were just as bad as the sequel trilogy. They're infamously terrible. Disney didn't ruin Star Wars. George Lucas did that in 1999.

    Keep in mind Lucas had virtually nothing to do with the film in the series that is universally considered the best (ESB). He got lucky with ANH (and even then it had to be saved by a stellar editor). Also, except for the terrible decision to change the Wookies to Ewoks in ROTJ, Lucas had almost nothing to do with that film, too.

    He directed four Star Wars films. Three of them are unwatchable. The other one is barely standing the test of time.

    George ruined star wars in 1999? Hahahahahah - no. He made a not very good star wars movie, then spent the others on course correction (cutting out Jar Jar and no more Lil' Ani business). The political world established as well as how the Jedi are, what Anakin is, the death of Jedi and the Sith moving in the shadows with their reveal of Darth Maul was all very well done - hands down better than anything the sequel trilogy has done.

    There was also nothing lore breaking about the PT. Was the PT magnificent? Of course not, it certainly could have been done better, but the ST sinks star wars below that of the Holiday Special, by far.

    Now you go on to say George had virtually nothing to do with the OT after ANH? You know he wrote all of them and consulted on all of them, loads of decisions going on with those movies came from George.

    The Wookies were changed to Ewoks because finding people like Mayhew was difficult - little people were easier.

    George was the man that connected all the stories together and had an overall idea as to how he wanted them to go.

    Yes he had producers, people he had complete the screenplays (for his approval) and hired directors that he trusted such as Kershner. He was very involved in the OT but did not want to take the helm of it all as he nearly had a heart attack when making ANH.

    Come the PT, he had the money, control and power to completely run the show - and I think this is where he should have been more humble, as he was with working on the OT to have additional sources to help steer the ship - not surrounding himself with "yes men".

    He needed Gary Kurtz to be the guy to bounce ideas off of. Kurtz co-directed ANH and ESB (Hollywood rules make it very difficult for credit to be given to more than one director). In ANH it was Kurtz who worked with the younger actors coaching them and preparing them for filming. Yes, Lucas wrote the story for ESB but he handed off the story to the screenplay writers and checked out. Kurtz directed much of ESB but Hollywood has weird rules about directing credit especially when there are more than two directors and ESB has three to five depending on who you ask.

    The prequels are terrible. The dialogue is infamously bad. And they did break lore: midichlororines, timeframe between RoTS and ANH . . . it was a mess. Unwatchable movies. Just like the sequel trilogy. Except at least TFA is watchable.

    Think whatever you like as long as it makes you sleep better at night.

    Okay, Big Man. Look up the rules for more than one director receiving credit for a film. It's ridiculous. Gary Kurtz co-directed two Star Wars movies and they happen to be widely considered the two best Star Wars movies. As for Lucas writing ESB . . . who knows? Lucas claimed he wrote the novelization of ANH but he didn't.

  • Boo
    4004 posts Member
    Boo wrote: »
    Boo wrote: »
    7thru9suck wrote: »
    I would like to feed disney to the wolverines, George should have never sold nor Stan/marvel to that evil machine. Sony would have been a better and much safer to characters bet, alas here we are. Suffer we must with a smile and good nature......

    The prequels were just as bad as the sequel trilogy. They're infamously terrible. Disney didn't ruin Star Wars. George Lucas did that in 1999.

    Keep in mind Lucas had virtually nothing to do with the film in the series that is universally considered the best (ESB). He got lucky with ANH (and even then it had to be saved by a stellar editor). Also, except for the terrible decision to change the Wookies to Ewoks in ROTJ, Lucas had almost nothing to do with that film, too.

    He directed four Star Wars films. Three of them are unwatchable. The other one is barely standing the test of time.

    George ruined star wars in 1999? Hahahahahah - no. He made a not very good star wars movie, then spent the others on course correction (cutting out Jar Jar and no more Lil' Ani business). The political world established as well as how the Jedi are, what Anakin is, the death of Jedi and the Sith moving in the shadows with their reveal of Darth Maul was all very well done - hands down better than anything the sequel trilogy has done.

    There was also nothing lore breaking about the PT. Was the PT magnificent? Of course not, it certainly could have been done better, but the ST sinks star wars below that of the Holiday Special, by far.

    Now you go on to say George had virtually nothing to do with the OT after ANH? You know he wrote all of them and consulted on all of them, loads of decisions going on with those movies came from George.

    The Wookies were changed to Ewoks because finding people like Mayhew was difficult - little people were easier.

    George was the man that connected all the stories together and had an overall idea as to how he wanted them to go.

    Yes he had producers, people he had complete the screenplays (for his approval) and hired directors that he trusted such as Kershner. He was very involved in the OT but did not want to take the helm of it all as he nearly had a heart attack when making ANH.

    Come the PT, he had the money, control and power to completely run the show - and I think this is where he should have been more humble, as he was with working on the OT to have additional sources to help steer the ship - not surrounding himself with "yes men".

    He needed Gary Kurtz to be the guy to bounce ideas off of. Kurtz co-directed ANH and ESB (Hollywood rules make it very difficult for credit to be given to more than one director). In ANH it was Kurtz who worked with the younger actors coaching them and preparing them for filming. Yes, Lucas wrote the story for ESB but he handed off the story to the screenplay writers and checked out. Kurtz directed much of ESB but Hollywood has weird rules about directing credit especially when there are more than two directors and ESB has three to five depending on who you ask.

    The prequels are terrible. The dialogue is infamously bad. And they did break lore: midichlororines, timeframe between RoTS and ANH . . . it was a mess. Unwatchable movies. Just like the sequel trilogy. Except at least TFA is watchable.

    Think whatever you like as long as it makes you sleep better at night.

    Okay, Big Man. Look up the rules for more than one director receiving credit for a film. It's ridiculous. Gary Kurtz co-directed two Star Wars movies and they happen to be widely considered the two best Star Wars movies. As for Lucas writing ESB . . . who knows? Lucas claimed he wrote the novelization of ANH but he didn't.

    Lucas loosely wrote the entire OT, so at least they had an overall story to adhere to, as well as giving consult advice. Lucas was the one that forbid the death of Han Solo in ROTJ for example.

    The PT was also governed by what was told tot he audience during the OT.

    ST could literally do whatever they wanted and made a pig's ear of it.
  • Boo wrote: »
    Boo wrote: »
    Boo wrote: »
    7thru9suck wrote: »
    I would like to feed disney to the wolverines, George should have never sold nor Stan/marvel to that evil machine. Sony would have been a better and much safer to characters bet, alas here we are. Suffer we must with a smile and good nature......

    The prequels were just as bad as the sequel trilogy. They're infamously terrible. Disney didn't ruin Star Wars. George Lucas did that in 1999.

    Keep in mind Lucas had virtually nothing to do with the film in the series that is universally considered the best (ESB). He got lucky with ANH (and even then it had to be saved by a stellar editor). Also, except for the terrible decision to change the Wookies to Ewoks in ROTJ, Lucas had almost nothing to do with that film, too.

    He directed four Star Wars films. Three of them are unwatchable. The other one is barely standing the test of time.

    George ruined star wars in 1999? Hahahahahah - no. He made a not very good star wars movie, then spent the others on course correction (cutting out Jar Jar and no more Lil' Ani business). The political world established as well as how the Jedi are, what Anakin is, the death of Jedi and the Sith moving in the shadows with their reveal of Darth Maul was all very well done - hands down better than anything the sequel trilogy has done.

    There was also nothing lore breaking about the PT. Was the PT magnificent? Of course not, it certainly could have been done better, but the ST sinks star wars below that of the Holiday Special, by far.

    Now you go on to say George had virtually nothing to do with the OT after ANH? You know he wrote all of them and consulted on all of them, loads of decisions going on with those movies came from George.

    The Wookies were changed to Ewoks because finding people like Mayhew was difficult - little people were easier.

    George was the man that connected all the stories together and had an overall idea as to how he wanted them to go.

    Yes he had producers, people he had complete the screenplays (for his approval) and hired directors that he trusted such as Kershner. He was very involved in the OT but did not want to take the helm of it all as he nearly had a heart attack when making ANH.

    Come the PT, he had the money, control and power to completely run the show - and I think this is where he should have been more humble, as he was with working on the OT to have additional sources to help steer the ship - not surrounding himself with "yes men".

    He needed Gary Kurtz to be the guy to bounce ideas off of. Kurtz co-directed ANH and ESB (Hollywood rules make it very difficult for credit to be given to more than one director). In ANH it was Kurtz who worked with the younger actors coaching them and preparing them for filming. Yes, Lucas wrote the story for ESB but he handed off the story to the screenplay writers and checked out. Kurtz directed much of ESB but Hollywood has weird rules about directing credit especially when there are more than two directors and ESB has three to five depending on who you ask.

    The prequels are terrible. The dialogue is infamously bad. And they did break lore: midichlororines, timeframe between RoTS and ANH . . . it was a mess. Unwatchable movies. Just like the sequel trilogy. Except at least TFA is watchable.

    Think whatever you like as long as it makes you sleep better at night.

    Okay, Big Man. Look up the rules for more than one director receiving credit for a film. It's ridiculous. Gary Kurtz co-directed two Star Wars movies and they happen to be widely considered the two best Star Wars movies. As for Lucas writing ESB . . . who knows? Lucas claimed he wrote the novelization of ANH but he didn't.

    Lucas loosely wrote the entire OT, so at least they had an overall story to adhere to, as well as giving consult advice. Lucas was the one that forbid the death of Han Solo in ROTJ for example.

    The PT was also governed by what was told tot he audience during the OT.

    ST could literally do whatever they wanted and made a pig's ear of it.

    No argument here. The sequels are terrible.

    But people need to be intellectually honest: the prequels were horrid as well. To hold up one as vastly superior to the other is madness.
Sign In or Register to comment.