[J m HofMarN]

JYAMG- I think my point was made, I havn't watched this movie in a month or so so I can't get much on it but if I didn't like it I could still make a convincing argument that it was bad despite how good we all agree it is.

[Just your average movie goer]

You guys have come back for more, hey? Well okay then.

I'll just do the quote and respond format - seems the quickest way of getting back to everyone's various points.

Here goes -

Quote

"Nice try - except that we already expect they are going to rescue Han, so they should have started with something else, something new and a little bit more important in the larger scale of things. Remember, the rebellion was nearly crushed in the last movie."

But the text scroll says whats happening when the film starts. When the film starts, they are going to rescue Han. They have to! So thats what they put. It would be sort of confusing if something else were happening before Hans rescue.

Agreed. However, it doesn't need to be the first thing that's mentioned. There are three paragraphs for the opening text scroll and I'd suggest that Han's rescue belongs in the third. If you remember the other films' text scrolls, they mentioned whatever was about to happen onscreen in the third paragraph...

Princess Leia races home aboard her starship, custodian of the stolen plans that can save her people and restore freedom to the galaxy...

Obsessed with finding Skywalker, Darth Vader has dispatched thousands of probes into the deep reaches of space...

The way to make a great opening statement is start big and then move down to the details. Strange that you like this movie enough to defend it's lame text scroll, Rory. Although probably no more strange than me hating it enough to even pick on such minute details (when there so many worse things to pick on).

Quote

"I think you missed the point there, Rory. It's not about what takes the death star's place as the centrepiece of the action - it's just something else should be used. And you don't need a massive explosion as your climax. Many movies do just fine without them."

No i think you missed my point. If you can't actually think of something that could replace the death star, then maybe there isn't something, or maybe its just too much to ask, considering its not a big deal anyway. The 2nd Death Star made the final battle a lot cooler; the movie would have suffered without it. The two ideas you came up with would either be too demanding on the techonology of the time (like a massive assault on a planet, involving perhaps hundreds of ships) or not very dramatic at all (yay, we destroyed 3% of their production capacity!).

No, Rory. I can think of something to replace the death star. It doesn't need to be massive - it just needs to be able to be worked into a good story. I'm sorry you can't see any potential in an attack on a shipyard. An attack on a shipyard in itself may not sound exciting enough to you - but when the rebels are attacking one for a very important purpose then it is. If blowing up twenty star destroyers that are almost completed doesn't sound exciting enough, then you can always raise the stakes with the context of the attack. A computer game called Rebel Assault II had an attack on a shipyard where they constructed special Tie Fighters with cloaking capabilites. That was pretty cool. There was also an excellent battle in a shipyard (a few actually) in Timothy Zahn's novels. You should do yourself a favour and read them - they might expand your imagination a bit.

And if you were really stuck for ideas, just a straight out fight between the rebels and the Imperial Fleet would work just as well. The Death Star served no purpose in Return of the Jedi, other than providing a big explosion at the end of the movie. Get over big explosions, people. There are a lot of other things that can make good finales - Lucas should have thought of one (or at least, paid someone else to).

Quote

Why would I be surprised at how convaluted the escape plan was? It was no more so convaluted than a lot of the other previous Star Wars plans.

]

I don't know, Rory. Break into the cellblock, blast the crap out of everyone and get away with the princess seemed pretty straightforward to me.

Quote

Introducing a new character out of the blue so late in the trilogy would have been a mistake. The reason for having multiple movies with the same characters is so you can develope Those characters, not introduce new ones to fill in plot holes.

Watch out, Rory - you're beginning to argue like Mike. Why would a new character be a mistake? Back it up, buddy. Lord of the Rings had new characters all the time and it wasn't a problem. Lots of other movies do too.

Also, Civilian has flat out proven to you all (whether you believe it or not) that originally, Leia was not meant to be Luke's sister and that her force connection to Luke did not mean anywhere near as much as all of you were arguing. Anyway, I'd say it was Luke who was showing ability in the force by contacting her - not Leia by receiving the message.

There WAS meant to be another character.

Also, "not introduce new ones to fill in plot holes" ? What the hell is this, Rory? The other was not a plot hole - it was an exciting opportunity.... an opportunity that Return of the Jedi completely discarded. The term 'plot hole' is used when parts of the plot disagree with each other and don't add up (like parts of the Bible, for example).

I may just take back what I said about your argument skills if you write too many things like that!

Quote

I've seen the movie quite a few times, and was never bothered by the acting. Han does fine, as does everyone else.

Okay, I've tried to be civil about this point. Now I'm going to have to say this quite bluntly - if you think that Harrison Ford gave a good performance in this film, then you do not know good acting from bad acting.

Quote

I dunno, if i were Vader, and my son was being shot by lightning, and I had been through several very emotionally charged moments with him, and he was screaming, and was about to die, and was one of the only people in like forever to give a damn about me and my feelings and my redemption, that might just be enough to do it for me. I can only imagine watching ones son lay dying on the floor might qualify as a life changing experience.

I agree, Rory - and it wa fine how he turned on the Emperor at that moment. What wasn't fine was the act that he was acting apologetically and soft for the entire movie beforehand. It would have helped a lot if he hadn't said to Luke "You don't know the power of the dark side. I must obey my master."

That line made it seem like Darth Vader was a pretty weak minded man - like those pathetic smokers in the world who are always craving for their next cigarette with shaking hands (message to everyone - smoking demonstrates weakmindedness like nothing else). It was pathetic.

Okay - I didn't answer all your points, Rory, not because I agree with some of the others (although the speeder bike thing sounds reasonable enough) but because I know when I'm wasting my time.

Quote

You have to consider that Vader NEVER knew he had a son, until the events of ESB.

He knew he had a son, Mike - it was just between Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back that he figured out who he was.

Quote

Interesting that in ESB, Vader is the one that changes the emperor's mind about killing Luke. He is basically trying to change the Emperor's mind in a subtle way..

True. And he was in emotional conflict for the entire movie, I'm sure. But he was still a powerful dark jedi. In Return of the Jedi, he was just a big teddy bear.

Quote

I agree about the Fellowship of the Ring. It was the better of the three, id say.

Way to go, Rory! We agree about something... finally!

Quote

But if he wasn't so bad a guy, why did he send a bounty hunter to either capture or kill Han Solo? (I understand that the new releases sort of mess with what happens, but I'd rather not talk about them, if its okay with you) If they were just going to have a friendly chat, and, say, work out a payment plan, you'd think Han wouldn't mind just talking to Jabba about it. And then, in The Empire Strikes Back, why did Jabba have a bounty out on Han's head? It seems like Jabba just isn't really that nice a guy; he's an evil crime lord.

Agreed. But I never said he was a nice guy. His evilness had to be limited though. No matter how you paint it, having Han work for a guy who feeds women to monsters for his sick amusement reflects on Han very badly.

Jabba's evilness should come from his greed and a nature of getting personal with anyone who's ever crossed him - Han can still work for such a guy.

No, the scene where Jabba murdered the dancing girl and his court looked on and laughed is a very sinister and disturbing... piece of film-making. I actually think this is George Lucas showing a sadistic side of his personality - he takes a bit of pleasure and excitement from imagining cruelty. We saw this very clearly in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. And we also saw it in some of that film's fans who said they "liked" the scene where the man's heart was ripped out.

I was amazed that terrible scene was overlooked when Return of the Jedi was first released and I'm still amazed by it now. I would have thought that parents would get a bit worried if they saw their nine year old kids watching that....

however, as adults don't watch Return of the Jedi, maybe they wouldn't know.


Okay, that's for you, Rory. On the more enjoyable side, I loved your Star Wars/Lord of the Rings analogy, Barend. That was pretty amazing.

And thanks for helping out in the good fight.


And Supes, I really enjoyed your post. That was a very good argument for the merits of Return of the Jedi. To all other Return of the Jedi lovers, read Supes' post. You can enjoy the movie perfectly well and get into the mindset of a young kid - and still retain the respect afforded to adults.

I don't disagree with anything Supes said at all. Thank you, my friend, for a very fine post.

Rory and Mike! Read Supes' post and learn!


Sad to end this post this way, but J M...

JYAMG- I think my point was made, I havn't watched this movie in a month or so so I can't get much on it but if I didn't like it I could still make a convincing argument that it was bad despite how good we all agree it is.

I know what the point was you were trying to achieve.... but mate, you failed terribly. You couldn't even recall very substantial things that happened in the film and all your points fell flat on their face.

I know you weren't seriously trying to have a go at The Empire Strikes Back and what you were doing was hard. It is VERY difficult to fault outstandingly good movies.

You may be able to make a convincing argument for why The Empire Strikes Back is a bad movie but you've given me no reason to suspect you could do this.

But if anyone reading this would like to try, then by all means, go ahead. I know the movie inside out and I still think I'd have trouble if I wanted to make an argument for it being a bad movie.

I don't want to discourage you. You're a good guy... but I think it's best if we forget those example points you raised. Because every single one of them got grilled (on multiple occasions in some instances).

This post has been edited by Just your average movie goer: 17 June 2004 - 05:01 AM

[CowboyCurtis]

Opening scrawl

Yeah, I don't like how the opening scrawl of ROTJ is worded either, you're absolutely right, it should've started with the more general like about the Rebel's plan to strike at the Empire, and then move into the more personal point where Luke is going to rescue Han Solo. I really don't feel Lucas worked that hard on that scrawl.

No, Rory. I can think of something to replace the death star. It doesn't need to be massive - it just needs to be able to be worked into a good story.

Very true. In an original script, the Rebels were attacking Coruscant, and it was protected by two smaller satellites similar to the Deathstar. This would make much, much more sense, and was probably a residual element in the final script After all they had Wedge attacking a "different part" of the same reactor as the Falcon. It was probably in the original ROTJ script that Wedge was attacking the other satellite while Lando (or in a different story concept--Han) takes out the first.

It would've made MUCH more sense to have had the final battle take place at Coruscant (or as it was called in the original story ideas--Had Abadadon [sp]), i.e. the rebels take the battle to the Emperor himself. Him tra-la-la-ing to the new Death Star was just ridiculous. Bugged me when I saw it the first time, still bugs me today.

Also, Civilian has flat out proven to you all (whether you believe it or not) that originally, Leia was not meant to be Luke's sister and that her force connection to Luke did not mean anywhere near as much as all of you were arguing. Anyway, I'd say it was Luke who was showing ability in the force by contacting her - not Leia by receiving the message.

I always thought Leia should've just been another Jedi. This would've been representative of the Force and it's swinging back to (however this balance thing works) correct the loss of the first good Jedi. It wouldn't have hurt anything---and she should've been Obi-Wan's and Corde's love-child. <<<just kidding about that last part.

[Rory]

I will now attempt to refute your points, and defend my views.

"Strange that you like this movie enough to defend it's lame text scroll, Rory. Although probably no more strange than me hating it enough to even pick on such minute details..."

I just think its weird that you care so much. The text scroll did its job of telling the audience whats been going on since we last left the heroes.

"A computer game called Rebel Assault II had an attack on a shipyard where they constructed special Tie Fighters with cloaking capabilites. That was pretty cool. "

No offense, but that actually sounds pretty lame, especially in the context of a movie. I'm sure it was pretty cool in the video game, because in video games we are generally willing to accept slightly sillier, less dramatic problems, if only because the game developers have less resources to work with, and they have to make a playable game. The assault on the 2nd death star, for example, would have been rather hard to make into a video game. Graphics wise, it would have been Hell, and there wasn't one principle player who single handedly won the battle. However, that in no way diminishes the battle, as I am sure you can agree. In fact, the battle provided a welcome change to the first death star battle, which relied on the skill of a few select individuals. (and thus, makes for a pretty sweet final level in the computer game, X Wing)

On a side note; what do you think presents a more dire threat that must be stopped at all costs, a few cloaked tie fighters, or an indestructable space station capable of destroying whole planets?

Furthermore, don't cloaked tie fighters seem a little weird to you? The cool thing about Tie Fighters is that they're flimsy, a perfect example of how the Empire views almost everyone as expendable. Throwing cloaking devices on those same Tie Fighters makes them a lot more expensive, makes the pilots a lot less expendable; it totally messes with the Empires image. Finally, it Kind of clashes with the Empires image of being IN YOUR FACE and indimidating, and what not. (though im sure there are some exceptions)

"There was also an excellent battle in a shipyard (a few actually) in Timothy Zahn's novels."

I have no doubt they were pretty cool, but again, you're switching mediums. There's a difference between descriping one battle out of many (id assume, if you're speaking of the admiral thrawn campaign) in a book, where you can expand in later books, and dont have to deal with making something look a certain way, and dont have a 2 hour time frame to work with, etc., and making a climactic final battle in a movie.

"You should do yourself a favour and read them - they might expand your imagination a bit."

Aww, thats so cute. You're trying to hurt my feelings. I'll probably read them some day, but you'll excuse me if I still view the creation of a star destroying space station as a bit more interesting than a mundane attack on a shipyard.

"And if you were really stuck for ideas, just a straight out fight between the rebels and the Imperial Fleet would work just as well. The Death Star served no purpose in Return of the Jedi, other than providing a big explosion at the end of the movie. Get over big explosions, people. There are a lot of other things that can make good finales - Lucas should have thought of one (or at least, paid someone else to)."

Wow, I really have to completely disagree. Well, first off, the Death Star serves the purpose of providing a really interesting place for Luke, the Emperor, and Vader to meet and fight, especially considering that Luke has a first hand view of the destruction of the rebel fleet. Secondly, the Death Star is a major player in the battle; when it starts firing its Superlaser, Capital Ships start exploding; the rebels realise they need to destroy this thing and Fast, or else the battle is lost. Thirdly, the creation of a new Death Star encourages the rebels to risk a direct, head on confrontation, with most (if not all) of their fleet. It adds a sense of urgency to their plans, and provides a good reason for a battle.

"I don't know, Rory. Break into the cellblock, blast the crap out of everyone and get away with the princess seemed pretty straightforward to me."

And rescuing Han by whatever means necessary seems pretty straight forward to me. Now both plans pretty much had their kinks, and degenerated into shooting stuff, and getting the hell out, but the actual initial plans were sort of vague and simple.

"Why would a new character be a mistake?"

Because its not necessary. Adding a new character, especially an important one, is always a risk. In this case, it wasnt a risk worth taking.

"Also, Civilian has flat out proven to you all (whether you believe it or not) that originally, Leia was not meant to be Luke's sister and that her force connection to Luke did not mean anywhere near as much as all of you were arguing. Anyway, I'd say it was Luke who was showing ability in the force by contacting her - not Leia by receiving the message.

There WAS meant to be another character. "

And thank goodness that there wasn't. Lucas made the right move. A new character was not necessary, and there was a big risk that they would have screwed it up. Introducing a major character like that (and it better be a major character) would have required a lot of screen time to setup, screen time that, in my opinion could be better spent else where.

Luckily, adding a new character was unnecessary. Leia already made a lot of sense.

"I may just take back what I said about your argument skills if you write too many things like that!"

I am literally quaking with fear, Just your average movie goer. I would hate to lose respect in your eyes. I honestly do not know if I could sleep at night knowing that you think little of my skills in debate. Do you know why, Just Your Average Goer of Movies? Because I respect you for the following reasons:
1. You're kind.
2. You're attractive. You look like a hero straight out of some sort of Fantasy Movie.
3. You're religious.
4. You live by a strict code of ethics. You believe in protecting the rights of all people, animals, and arm chairs.
5. You hate Posers and Sell Outs.

"Okay, I've tried to be civil about this point. Now I'm going to have to say this quite bluntly - if you think that Harrison Ford gave a good performance in this film, then you do not know good acting from bad acting."

But I do think Harrison Ford gave a good performance... So wait... .... ... ... HEY! Damn you and your logic.

Okay, Just your average movie goer, Im just going to come out and state another logical truth. I was trying to be civil, but it has to be said. If you think the world is round, then, quite bluntly, you do not know good acting from bad acting.

"You don't know the power of the dark side. I must obey my master."

I dont have a big problem with this line for two reasons. Firstly, its just one line, and doesnt reflect on all the scenes between luke and vader and the empire. Secondly, it caries an element of truth. We knew in the other movies that Vader serves the Emperor, and does so with unswerving loyalty.

"Agreed. But I never said he was a nice guy. His evilness had to be limited though. No matter how you paint it, having Han work for a guy who feeds women to monsters for his sick amusement reflects on Han very badly."

I've given at least 4 reasons why it might not. Pick one that works for you. I personally think any of them works alright, but if you want, you can pick the easiest one: he just didn't know that Jabba fed innocent women to monsters. As I said before, im sure it doesnt happen every day. Furthermore, we dont even know if Han has ever even been to Jabba's palace.

[Jordan]

"A computer game called Rebel Assault II had an attack on a shipyard where they constructed special Tie Fighters with cloaking capabilites. That was pretty cool. "

No offense, but that actually sounds pretty lame, especially in the context of a movie

This is a great point we got here. I don't care how cool of an idea cloaking is, it's still to far fetch to be taken serious.

Cloaking only worked in STARTREK. Because A) I never watched it with great pride, so really didn't care if the show was cute and dumb. Klingons needed something cool cause their ships looked real low tech in comparisson to the ENTERPRISE.


Now, aside from ST, cloaking really makes no sense. This concept actually ruined a BOND flim. DIE ANOTHER DIE had a villian who deviced some contraption that could magnifiy the sun's intensity and use it as a weapon. Bond had an invisible car. Ok, which is better to have? If you said, invisible car, then you're right! And what amazes me is how this totally breakthrough technology was set aside as run of the mill bond gear, with no application other than to protect him from being shot.

The thing is, cloaking is just so powerful and so amazing that if someone did master it, then every one would. And if they did not? Well, then they would be dead. It's like anything else, you need to be upto date with your enemy in order to have a chance.

I put Cloaking on the shelf next to time travel (out of dreams, using a machine) and stopping time. I hate it when movies revolve around these topics.

[Laura]

I want to give a big WORD to the not adding a new major character late in the series. As Rory says, new characters take a lot of time to set up, particularly if you are going to care about them. Your majorest of major characters, ones that will be there through the long haul, need to be introduced toward the beginning of the narrative. Otherwise they're just johnny-come-latelies.

Sure, Lord of the Rings introduced new characters, but that's different for several reasons:

1. New characters were introduced so often that you get a sense of the world being huge and the story being incredibly mythical and epic. Star Wars has a similar feeling, I suppose, but it's just not the same. If they were going to introduce new characters like it ain't no thang, they ought to have been doing it more often. And I'm glad they didn't--it wouldn't have worked the same way as it does in LOTR, where they really speak and act like they're in an epic. Star Wars tends to play it closer to the core characters, getting more into their emotions etc., so it was doubly important to stick to the ones you really care about.

2. Many of the new characters in LOTR are there for awhile, then left; they were important in their episode, and the episode was important to the narrative, but they were never major trilogy-wide characters. The family at Rohan is a good example of this. Theoden is great, but you're never going to care about him the way you care about, say, Aragorn. Eowyn seems like an exception because she continues to be important throughout the end of the story, from her introduction in the last book. But I think the final choice Aragorn makes to stay with Arwen, a character from the beginning of the book, while Eowyn gets paired with another later-introduced (and not as important) character--Faramir--really drives home the point that the characters who get introduced at the beginning really have a greater level of importance than those who are introduced later on. I love Eowyn, but you spend so much time seeing Arwen be developed that I was really rooting for her to end up with Aragorn. (This, of course, is a strictly movie-centered analysis of LOTR, since the books didn't feature much of the girls; but we're talking about movies, here, anyway.)

Gollum is, of course, introduced late-ish, with only hints as to his presence in the first movie, but his status as an outsider is vitally important to his character. He's never intended to be lovable the way Frodo and Sam are. A character introduced late in Star Wars would never be as lovable as Leia; s/he would always be an outsider.

Let me give another example. I really enjoy the series Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which I think successfully integrated later introduced characters (Oz the werewolf, Tara the witch, etc.) with the main crew (Buffy, Willow, Xander and Giles, who were there from the beginning). But although you love and care about them in their time, the later introduced characters were NEVER as important as the older ones. Though they were important for a season or two or even three, they left while the original four stayed, as it should be. And the original four were always the ones doing the major plot-changing stuff. Even though there were several non-core characters in season 4, for example, it was Buffy, Willow, Xander and Giles who teamed up to become a "Super-Buffy" to the fight that season's big bad.

You can really see where Buffy started to screw up was when it strayed from this formula. Instead of ending out the series with the core four in season seven, it introduced more and more "Potential Slayers", crowding out the original group. Thus, season seven sucked. It was simply not possible to give the time needed to develop new characters that late in the game. Indeed, the final episode largely featured the original four, and that episode was good--but not enough to save the season.

I think the bottom line is that the characters introduced early on seem natural and right fulfilling major roles, playing into the story in a big way, and seeming like "one of the team," where later-introduced characters always tend to seem like outsiders, and you get the feeling that they could go at any minute. Giving later-introduced characters a vital role in the plot really seems like a deus ex machina.

In the final scene of the last film (or episode), you want to see the same faces you saw within the first act or two of the first film (or episode). You really want to learn how they've grown and changed. The story is about them. The rest of the characters are icing on the cake, and it always seems wrong and unnatural to end up giving them the same star treatment you give to the original characters.

[Despondent]

Too bad Lando wasn't the Other. He kinda joined the troupe late in the game. (Yet there he was, clapping in time for the final frame.)

BTW Yoda's line "there is another" came right at a reel change. Half the time I saw it part of the line was just cut off.

(And not in defense of Lucarse) I think Leia being Luke's sister was planned into the writing of ESB. Yes, I recall the reader's letter to Starlog that summer, summarizing this point. It was hard to swallow at first, but when Jedi mysteries were dumped it was kind of like "ok fine. what else you got?"

Or maybe Lucas read the same column, followed a fan's advice and (like others) was disappointed with Jedi and swore never to accept another suggestion. Ever.

[Just your average movie goer]

You're analogy to Buffy Season 7 was good, Laura. It did suck and in no small way because the abundance of new characters.

However, let me put in a quick word FOR the introduction of new characters. They did it in The Empire Strikes Back with Lando and it was better for it.


And to Rory, I think you're just a guy who likes to keeping stirring trouble for the sake of it. I'm not quite sure if this is the case, but I'm pretty confident that you deliberately missed a lot of my points, especially about the alternatives to the Death Star.

With the cloaked tie fighters, anyone could tell that I was NOT saying that's what should have been used in Return of the Jedi. It was what is known in English as an EXAMPLE (or PO-GI in Korean, or RE in Japanese, if you want to know).

Also, the Death Star is not an effective weapon. It's hard to maneuvour, can't move anywhere near as fast as standard ships and....

you know what? Fuck it. I'm tired of your silly "let's keep arguing against logical points for the fun of it" game. I've got better things to do than convince YOU about the flaws of Return of the Jedi.

Consider any respect I had for you as gone. Rory, lord of all Chefelf and Lance and Eskimo Forums, you are a shit stirrer.


If anyone else is dying to know what I think of them, here goes -

Civilian Number Two, you're a legend, very intelligent, always worth listening to and you never post anything unless it's worth reading.

Mike, I like you. You're a nice guy. You post a lot of stupid arguments when it comes to a certain two movies, but it's good fun. And you post good ones for a lot of other things so that balances it all out.

Despondent, you're great. Come back to Star Wars forum more often.

Ferris Whiel and Cowboy Curtis - you guys are great. You know why? Because we think the same way. And the measure of a man is how similar he is to myself.

Supes, you're a great guy. I like your posts very much. And it's good to see other Australians on this forum. Go the Aussie triumvirate, indeed.

Barend, the other member of the triumvirate - you are a funny, funny guy.

Vwing - you're a good man, it's a shame we don't see much of you these days.

Jordan, you're a good guy too. Good luck with the job in Korea.

J M and Paladin - I hope to see more of you guys on this forum in the future. I like you too.

Esco, we miss you. Where have you been?

Distant Angel, you're off to a great start.

Chefelf, Laura and Heccubus, where would we all be without you guys?

My apologies to anyone I've left out.

And remember, Rory - you're a shit stirrer.

This post has been edited by Just your average movie goer: 17 June 2004 - 10:40 AM

[civilian_number_two]

I wil never pass up an opportunity to let a forum shift gears, Laura, so lets' talk about what's wrong with your BUFFY analogy:

a ) Several late-intro characters came to be more interesting and better loved than some of the originals. I may mention Spike, or Wesley, or crossing streams, Gunn and Fred. All far more relevant to the series and its spin-off than comic relief Xander or eventually wise background man Giles (yes, I know, he's all handsome, but he was literally pointless for the last two seasons!) You might know that this is true of all tv series; noone watching ER right now cares that George Clooney left, and the West Wing does not mourn the loss of Rob Lowe.
b ) Tara was a dropped ball of an idea. She had been intended as Willow's focus, and secretly hinted as a more powerful being than anyone knew. When it turned out the fans didn't like her that much, the writers dropped the idea altogether and decided to weaken her, later kill her, and go along with the much more boring move of making Willow all freaky powerful.
c ) Seasons six and seven sucked not because the writers strayed from the core characters, but because the writing wasn't any good. Flat out. Had nothing to do with, yes, way too many extra characters, but rather with a feeling that Joss was phoning it in. Too many speeches pretty much always equals writers are spinning their wheels while they figure out what they want to do.
d ) Your LOTR example is the counter-point that should have steered you clear of this whole argument. Several characters were introduced midway that came to be important, and weren't the nerds all yelling that they wanted MORE, not less of Faramir. However, to give you your due, Jackson and Walsh agreed, and took Arwen from an appendix and placed her in the body of the story, allowing her briefly to occupy a role meant for another person altogether. A man, no less.
e ) Lando! Wicket! WTF?

[Rory]

I'm just an average movie goer like yourself, buddy. If you can't handle a good debate, then, well, stop. Which is what you are doing. good.

"With the cloaked tie fighters, anyone could tell that I was NOT saying that's what should have been used in Return of the Jedi. It was what is known in English as an EXAMPLE (or PO-GI in Korean, or RE in Japanese, if you want to know)."

Thats why I mentioned it as a side note. I was merely saying that there are ideas that work for movies, and ideas that work as video games, and they don't always mix. Frankly, you gave what is known in English as an Irrelevant Example.

"Also, the Death Star is not an effective weapon. It's hard to maneuvour, can't move anywhere near as fast as standard ships and...."

IT BLOWS UP PLANETS. Furthermore, it can also blow up Capital Ships, which isn't too shabby if you ask me.

"And to Rory, I think you're just a guy who likes to keeping stirring trouble for the sake of it."

I guess that depends on what you mean by stirring up trouble. If what you mean by trouble is that I won't concede on a point when I suspect that I'm right and have plenty of good arguements to back up my suspicion, then yes I do like to stir up trouble.

"you know what? Fuck it. I'm tired of your silly "let's keep arguing against logical points for the fun of it" game. I've got better things to do than convince YOU about the flaws of Return of the Jedi."

Fine with me. I wasn't the one that restarted this whole ROTJ arguement anyway. We had reached what seemed like a concensus; you said you saw reason in my points, and then, because of some small comment someone made, you made a huge list of problems you had with the movie. What did you think i'd do? Just not respond? Pretty naive, if you ask me.

"Consider any respect I had for you as gone. Rory, lord of all Chefelf and Lance and Eskimo Forums, you are a shit stirrer."

Aww, I would have thought you were above such petty and silly insults. No wait, I would never have thought that. Nothing about you would ever make me think that.

This post has been edited by Rory: 17 June 2004 - 05:43 PM

[Esco]

JYAMG, what up man? I'm still here. Just been kinda busy for once.

You need to shake off them haters! Every forum will have its share of
flamers, this one is no different (although in a sense we are all SW prequel flamers)

[Mike Mac from NYU]

Mike, I like you. You're a nice guy. You post a lot of stupid arguments when it comes to a certain two movies, but it's good fun. And you post good ones for a lot of other things so that balances it all out.

Which happen to be the two movies you don't like.

So I only make intelligent comments when it is about movies that fit your personal viewpoints and tastes as ?

I understand the Democratic and Republican parties work on the same principle

from that i deduce that if civilian were to uphold or defend a movie you hate, then his comments would become 'stupid"

I am willing to bet you tickets to the next Star Wars movies that if civilian or Ferris upheld ROTJ you would be considering his viewpoints as "stupid"

That's what I conclude.

[Jordan]

Don't fret, JYAMG. Rory gets in tifts with people from time to time here. I think I did over a gay marriage discussion in the L&E abadonned forums. I think it's his delivery, it sounds cocky.

His very forum rank is a reminder of a battle between him and chef.

This post has been edited by Jordan: 17 June 2004 - 02:23 PM

[Jordan]

from that i deduce that if civilian were to uphold or defend a movie you hate, then his comments would become 'stupid"

I am willing to bet you tickets to the next Star Wars movies that if civilian or Ferris upheld ROTJ you would be considering his viewpoints as "stupid"

That's what I conclude. 

Ya I would. I find peoples comments, viewpoints either A) stupid boring C) helpful D) interesting

Why can't we make comments about how we don't like eachothers takes on things?


Chef, I know you will never read this, but can you please lock this thread, it's stealing attention away from other topics and this one has no topic any more.

This post has been edited by Jordan: 17 June 2004 - 02:31 PM

[Rory]

I'm proud of my title rank.