| |
You know, I've always wondered why I like RotJ the least of the trilogy, and I
think you've hit it! Just think if half the movie was used attacking the 2nd
Death Star.
-John Van
Steve Bliss wrote in message <371c7e1a.2609035@lugnet.com>...
> On Mon, 19 Apr 1999 21:21:42 GMT, "John VanZwieten"
> <john_vanzwieten@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
> > Compare X-Wing "face time" with MF "face time" in the Trilogy. My guess is
> > that the MF would edge out the X-wing, though obviously the X-Wing plays a
> > central role at least in ANH and ESB, and in SW computer games.
>
> That's the problem with RotJ! The main characters don't spend enough time
> flying around in their cool ships!
>
> Steve
|
|
| |
On Tue, 20 Apr 1999 13:50:13 GMT, "John VanZwieten"
<john_vanzwieten@email.msn.com> wrote:
> You know, I've always wondered why I like RotJ the least of the trilogy, and I
> think you've hit it! Just think if half the movie was used attacking the 2nd
> Death Star.
:)
Nah, that would have been too too derivative (having another Death Star was
already too derivative).
What if they had taken the Death Star planet-killer weapon, and put it on a
*much* smaller platform (instead of an even bigger platform)? These might
have been 10Km long, but only 1 KM wide. Kind of like the ultimate weapon
from Star Trek (I don't remember the episode name, sorry). Anyway, the
imperials could have started establishing a production facility for these
monsters, and the Alliance would have had to destroy. They would succeed
after a hard-fought battle, with the unfortunate loss of the Endor moon,
and all of those wacky, loveable Ewoks would have been fried to a crisp.
And Timmy was visiting the tree city at the time!
Steve
|
|
| |
In lugnet.starwars, Steve Bliss writes:
> On Tue, 20 Apr 1999 13:50:13 GMT, "John VanZwieten"
> <john_vanzwieten@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
> > You know, I've always wondered why I like RotJ the least of the trilogy, and • I
> > think you've hit it! Just think if half the movie was used attacking the 2nd
> > Death Star.
>
> :)
>
> Nah, that would have been too too derivative (having another Death Star was
> already too derivative).
>
> What if they had taken the Death Star planet-killer weapon, and put it on a
> *much* smaller platform (instead of an even bigger platform)? These might
> have been 10Km long, but only 1 KM wide. Kind of like the ultimate weapon
> from Star Trek (I don't remember the episode name, sorry). Anyway, the
> imperials could have started establishing a production facility for these
> monsters, and the Alliance would have had to destroy. They would succeed
> after a hard-fought battle, with the unfortunate loss of the Endor moon,
> and all of those wacky, loveable Ewoks would have been fried to a crisp.
> And Timmy was visiting the tree city at the time!
I whole heartedly agree. How come the Ewoks got there own movie but no other
cooler aliens did?
>
> Steve
|
|
| |
Would you guys stop picking on the Ewoks :) Wicket was my second
favorite character. They got 1/2 of a movie because George Lucas
wanted to give them 1/2 the movie, duh :)
Ryan
"Build or build not. There is no try." - Lego Master Yoda
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 4/20/99, at 8:44 PM, Ryan Carr wrote:
> In lugnet.starwars, Steve Bliss writes:
> > On Tue, 20 Apr 1999 13:50:13 GMT, "John VanZwieten"
> > <john_vanzwieten@email.msn.com> wrote:
> >
> > > You know, I've always wondered why I like RotJ the least of the trilogy, and • I
> > > think you've hit it! Just think if half the movie was used attacking the 2nd
> > > Death Star.
> >
> > :)
> >
> > Nah, that would have been too too derivative (having another Death Star was
> > already too derivative).
> >
> > What if they had taken the Death Star planet-killer weapon, and put it on a
> > *much* smaller platform (instead of an even bigger platform)? These might
> > have been 10Km long, but only 1 KM wide. Kind of like the ultimate weapon
> > from Star Trek (I don't remember the episode name, sorry). Anyway, the
> > imperials could have started establishing a production facility for these
> > monsters, and the Alliance would have had to destroy. They would succeed
> > after a hard-fought battle, with the unfortunate loss of the Endor moon,
> > and all of those wacky, loveable Ewoks would have been fried to a crisp.
> > And Timmy was visiting the tree city at the time!
>
> I whole heartedly agree. How come the Ewoks got there own movie but no other
> cooler aliens did?
> >
> > Steve
|
|
| |
On Tue, 20 Apr 1999 16:00:13 GMT, blisses@worldnet.att.net (Steve Bliss) wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Apr 1999 13:50:13 GMT, "John VanZwieten"
> <john_vanzwieten@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
> > You know, I've always wondered why I like RotJ the least of the trilogy, and I
> > think you've hit it! Just think if half the movie was used attacking the 2nd
> > Death Star.
>
> :)
>
> Nah, that would have been too too derivative (having another Death Star was
> already too derivative).
>
> What if they had taken the Death Star planet-killer weapon, and put it on a
> *much* smaller platform (instead of an even bigger platform)? These might
> have been 10Km long, but only 1 KM wide. Kind of like the ultimate weapon
> from Star Trek (I don't remember the episode name, sorry). Anyway, the
> imperials could have started establishing a production facility for these
> monsters, and the Alliance would have had to destroy. They would succeed
> after a hard-fought battle, with the unfortunate loss of the Endor moon,
> and all of those wacky, loveable Ewoks would have been fried to a crisp.
> And Timmy was visiting the tree city at the time!
Then everybody could have sat around celebrating and eating fried Ewok.
A universally known delicacy.
-- Terry K --
|
|
| |
I think RotJ was the least appreciated because of the perception that the
series had done a cardinal sin by trying to be "cute". The Ewoks were just to
cute, something I hate to see in a good movie. Taking the series as a whole,
the presence of the Ewoks is a jarringly sour note.
-- Terry K --
On Tue, 20 Apr 1999 13:50:13 GMT, "John VanZwieten"
<john_vanzwieten@email.msn.com> wrote:
> You know, I've always wondered why I like RotJ the least of the trilogy, and I
> think you've hit it! Just think if half the movie was used attacking the 2nd
> Death Star.
>
> -John Van
>
> Steve Bliss wrote in message <371c7e1a.2609035@lugnet.com>...
> > On Mon, 19 Apr 1999 21:21:42 GMT, "John VanZwieten"
> > <john_vanzwieten@email.msn.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Compare X-Wing "face time" with MF "face time" in the Trilogy. My guess is
> > > that the MF would edge out the X-wing, though obviously the X-Wing plays a
> > > central role at least in ANH and ESB, and in SW computer games.
> >
> > That's the problem with RotJ! The main characters don't spend enough time
> > flying around in their cool ships!
> >
> > Steve
>
>
|
|
| |
Terry K wrote in message <371d72ba.4919104@lugnet.com>...
> I think RotJ was the least appreciated because of the perception that the
> series had done a cardinal sin by trying to be "cute". The Ewoks were • just to
> cute, something I hate to see in a good movie. Taking the series as a • whole,
> the presence of the Ewoks is a jarringly sour note.
So what makes people think that TPM, which stars a child for crying out
loud, isn't going to be just as cute and lame?
Jesse
__________________________________________________________________
Jesse The Jolly Jingoist
Looking for answers?
Read the rec.toys.lego FAQ! http://www.multicon.de/fun/legofaq.html
Power-search in Deja News! http://www.dejanews.com/home_ps.shtml
|
|
| |
On Wed, 21 Apr 1999 22:18:34 GMT, "Jesse Long" <LongJR97@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Terry K wrote in message <371d72ba.4919104@lugnet.com>...
> > I think RotJ was the least appreciated because of the perception that the
> > series had done a cardinal sin by trying to be "cute". The Ewoks were • just to
> > cute, something I hate to see in a good movie. Taking the series as a • whole,
> > the presence of the Ewoks is a jarringly sour note.
>
> So what makes people think that TPM, which stars a child for crying out
> loud, isn't going to be just as cute and lame?
A very valid question. One can only hope.
But one boy thrust into the center of galactic events could be a subject
handled without reverting to being cute. I hope so, anyway.
The Ewoks, on the other hand, were primarily portrayed as being cute little
fuzzy bear-type beings. Something that could appeal to toddlers.
-- Terry K --
|
|
| |
On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 00:03:45 GMT, legoverse@geocities.com (Terry K) wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Apr 1999 22:18:34 GMT, "Jesse Long" <LongJR97@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Terry K wrote in message <371d72ba.4919104@lugnet.com>...
> > > I think RotJ was the least appreciated because of the perception that the
> > > series had done a cardinal sin by trying to be "cute". The Ewoks were • just to
> > > cute, something I hate to see in a good movie. Taking the series as a • whole,
> > > the presence of the Ewoks is a jarringly sour note.
> >
> > So what makes people think that TPM, which stars a child for crying out
> > loud, isn't going to be just as cute and lame?
>
> A very valid question. One can only hope.
> But one boy thrust into the center of galactic events could be a subject
> handled without reverting to being cute. I hope so, anyway.
Very true. Interesting that the second trailer barely mentions Anakin (I
hate when movies change advertising, and make themselves look like an
entirely different movie!).
> The Ewoks, on the other hand, were primarily portrayed as being cute little
> fuzzy bear-type beings. Something that could appeal to toddlers.
Plus, there's the hokey plot-line problem. Natives discover white hunters,
plan to do nasty things to white hunters, but then think the golden haired
(er, -plated) one is a god.
Steve
|
|
| |
On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 18:20:42 GMT, blisses@worldnet.att.net (Steve Bliss) wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 00:03:45 GMT, legoverse@geocities.com (Terry K) wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 21 Apr 1999 22:18:34 GMT, "Jesse Long" <LongJR97@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Terry K wrote in message <371d72ba.4919104@lugnet.com>...
> > > > I think RotJ was the least appreciated because of the perception that the
> > > > series had done a cardinal sin by trying to be "cute". The Ewoks were • just to
> > > > cute, something I hate to see in a good movie. Taking the series as a • whole,
> > > > the presence of the Ewoks is a jarringly sour note.
> > >
> > > So what makes people think that TPM, which stars a child for crying out
> > > loud, isn't going to be just as cute and lame?
> >
> > A very valid question. One can only hope.
> > But one boy thrust into the center of galactic events could be a subject
> > handled without reverting to being cute. I hope so, anyway.
>
> Very true. Interesting that the second trailer barely mentions Anakin (I
> hate when movies change advertising, and make themselves look like an
> entirely different movie!).
I hate when the movie trailers are better than the movie. Or when they give
away what should be a pivotal plot point in the movie. I *HATE* knowing what
is going to happen from seeing the stupid preview.
(go ahead and insert Titanic sinking jokes here) <g>
> > The Ewoks, on the other hand, were primarily portrayed as being cute little
> > fuzzy bear-type beings. Something that could appeal to toddlers.
>
> Plus, there's the hokey plot-line problem. Natives discover white hunters,
> plan to do nasty things to white hunters, but then think the golden haired
> (er, -plated) one is a god.
Yuck. I had forgotten that segment of plot drivel.
-- Terry K --
|
|
| |
On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 20:43:24 GMT, legoverse@geocities.com (Terry K) wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 18:20:42 GMT, blisses@worldnet.att.net (Steve Bliss) wrote:
> > Plus, there's the hokey plot-line problem. Natives discover white hunters,
> > plan to do nasty things to white hunters, but then think the golden haired
> > (er, -plated) one is a god.
>
> Yuck. I had forgotten that segment of plot drivel.
Forgot to mention the most insipid part of it: Chewie being fooled by a
hunk of dead meat on a line. And the entire crew being hoist by a snare.
Steve
|
|
| |
On Fri, 23 Apr 1999 13:41:22 GMT, blisses@worldnet.att.net (Steve Bliss) wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 20:43:24 GMT, legoverse@geocities.com (Terry K) wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 18:20:42 GMT, blisses@worldnet.att.net (Steve Bliss) wrote:
> > > Plus, there's the hokey plot-line problem. Natives discover white hunters,
> > > plan to do nasty things to white hunters, but then think the golden haired
> > > (er, -plated) one is a god.
> >
> > Yuck. I had forgotten that segment of plot drivel.
>
> Forgot to mention the most insipid part of it: Chewie being fooled by a
> hunk of dead meat on a line. And the entire crew being hoist by a snare.
Ouch! Ouch! OK! I give up! Uncle!
-- Terry K --
|
|
|
