 | | Re: Jar Jar will probably be back —Ryan Dennett
|
| | | (...) <boneboney@aol.com> wrote: (...) destroyed.. and (...) waiting on the (...) destroyed, but (...) Padme says "nearby" Ryan "Build or build not. There is no try." - Lego Master Yoda (25 years ago, 21-Jun-99, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Jar Jar will probably be back —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | Mookie wrote in message <3767C935.1A1C857C@e...pc.com>... On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 21:53:17 GMT, "D Garcia" <boneboney@aol.com> wrote: On 6/21/99, at 11:46 AM, blisses@worldnet.att.net wrote: On 6/21/99, "Scott R Dennett" <dennett@agate.net> wrote: What (...) (25 years ago, 21-Jun-99, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | RE: Jar Jar will probably be back —Mark Benz
|
| | | | (...) SNIP (...) I don't think so, you forgot the words "New" and "future". And Phantom is not on your list. This gives, something like: <Darth> <Maul> may <be> destroyed, but the New Future Menace lurks nearby. Seems more likely, though new and (...) (25 years ago, 21-Jun-99, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Jar Jar will probably be back —Greg Majewski
|
| | | | | (...) How about "The Menace may be destroyed, but the new Darth Maul lurks in the nearby future." I know it sounds weird, but Maul didn't bleed when Obi-Wan chopped him in half. I'm thinking that he is a droid. Maybe? Greg citrusx__@yahoo.com (URL) (25 years ago, 21-Jun-99, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Jar Jar will probably be back —Jeff Stembel
|
| | | | | | | (...) Lighsabres are hot, thus cauterizing any wound they make. So, no Bleeding. Jeff (25 years ago, 21-Jun-99, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Jar Jar will probably be back —James Brown
|
| | | | | | | | (...) ObSWnitpick: Lightsabres aren't hot, they excite the particles in the objects they are passing through, and cause the 'burn' effect differently. If lightsabres were hot enough to create the kind of heat needed to burn/cauterize the kind of (...) (25 years ago, 21-Jun-99, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Jar Jar will probably be back —Sean McInnis
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Yeah but in ANH in the canteena when OB1 sliced off bubbies arm the was no blood just a cauterized limb. (25 years ago, 22-Jun-99, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Jar Jar will probably be back —Greg Majewski
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) But, didn't he say something like "Sorry about the mess?"(1) Maybe everybody is right about not wanting to show a lot of blood, but... Greg citrusx__@yahoo.com (URL) or was that Han Solo? (25 years ago, 22-Jun-99, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Jar Jar will probably be back —Richard Dee
|
| | | | | | | | | | On Tue, 22 Jun 1999 18:11:56 GMT, Greg Majewski uttered the following profundities... (...) It was Han Solo, tossing a coin to the bartender, after he blasted Greedo. (25 years ago, 23-Jun-99, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Jar Jar will probably be back —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Seems like there was *some* blood, just not a puddle. I remember being pretty shocked the first time I saw the shot of the arm. Steve (25 years ago, 22-Jun-99, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Jar Jar will probably be back —Selçuk Göre
|
| | | | | | | | Steve Bliss wrote in message <376ff3be.4167207@lu...et.com>... (...) I don't remember blood. It' was also same for Luke, when he lost his arm to his fathers light sabre. Selçuk (25 years ago, 25-Jun-99, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Jar Jar will probably be back —Jeff Stembel
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I do kinda remember a puddle of blood, but the wounds didn't spray blood. Heck, there wasn't any blood flowing at all. It confused me when I first say it. Jeff (25 years ago, 25-Jun-99, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Jar Jar will probably be back —Terry Keller
|
| | | | | | (...) lot of gore. And I swear that when OWK slices DM in half, there is a brief flash of red on the screen - like a subliminal suggestion of blood spatter. Besides, doesn't the "Phantom Menace" refer to Senator Palpatine and his secret life? -- (...) (25 years ago, 21-Jun-99, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Jar Jar will probably be back —Jeff Stembel
|
| | | | | | | (...) secret (...) IMO, the 'Phantom Menace' is the Trade Federation. Their attack on Naboo was just a ploy so Palpatine could become Chancelor(?). After the Trade Federation's attack is stopped, most people (except Mace and Yoda) think everything (...) (25 years ago, 22-Jun-99, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Jar Jar will probably be back —Terry Keller
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Menace the Trade Feds might be, but phantoms they are not. Out in the open, they are. (1) And the attack was a ploy on Palpatines part, for sure. And at the very end, all seems well with the Republic, except for the phantom menace of the Sith, (...) (25 years ago, 23-Jun-99, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Jar Jar will probably be back —Ryan Dennett
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) <Dragonelf1@aol.com> wrote: (...) Palpatine and his (...) attack on Naboo was (...) Trade (...) Yoda) think (...) in the open, (...) the very end, (...) of the Sith, in (...) Ah, Terry you shoulda said "Yoda-speak seem I to be using" :) Ryan (25 years ago, 23-Jun-99, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Jar Jar will probably be back —Terry Keller
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Nah, that is what I (don't) pay you for. Fixing my mistakes. :-) -- Terry K -- (25 years ago, 23-Jun-99, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Jar Jar will probably be back —Jeff Stembel
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Ah, but something out in the open can still be a 'phantom'. A phantom is 'something existing in perception only', and the Sith are a very real menace. The Naboo thought the Trade Federation was the threat to them and the republic, so the (...) (25 years ago, 23-Jun-99, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Jar Jar will probably be back —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) So you're saying George could have called this movie "The Feint"? Steve (25 years ago, 23-Jun-99, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Jar Jar will probably be back —Jeff Stembel
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) republic, (...) Sure. Of course, it is his movie, so he could've called it anything just about anything. :) Jeff (25 years ago, 24-Jun-99, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Jar Jar will probably be back —Geoff Hardy
|
| | | | | | | | some spoiler below..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (...) Ah... but it's not! Part of the purpose of this movie was to demonstrate how ineffective and weak the Republic was. This was wonderfully shown in the Senate Chamber (...) (25 years ago, 28-Jun-99, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Jar Jar will probably be back —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) Agreed. (...) Yep. I noticed that the second time I saw the movie. But I also wondered if it might have been DM's light-staff, just below the screen. (...) I don't know. It seems like George Lucas thinks the meaning of "the phantom menace" is (...) (25 years ago, 22-Jun-99, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Jar Jar will probably be back —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | (...) You are so right. But there are still 15 unknown words. It could be: The <Phantom> Menace may <be> destroyed, but nearby lurks <a> new <some phrase indicating a danger to the future>. Steve (25 years ago, 21-Jun-99, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | RE: Jar Jar will probably be back —Ryan Dennett
|
| | | | I only have 5 of the cans(so far :), but what if you arrange them in numerical order. ie. I have cans 10 & 11 and if you have them in order they say "future may". I don't know what any of the other cans say but I would guess maybe "what the future (...) (25 years ago, 21-Jun-99, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Jar Jar will probably be back —Toki Barron
|
| | | | | I have can #12 here in my hand (Obi-Wan Kenobi) and it says "another". (...) (25 years ago, 22-Jun-99, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Jar Jar will probably be back —Ryan Dennett
|
| | | | | | OK anyone have #13. Maybe it's "bring" "future may another bring" That sounds like something Yoda would say Ryan "Build or build not. There is no try." - Lego Master Yoda ***...*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***...*** (...) "another". (...) them (...) on (...) (...) (25 years ago, 22-Jun-99, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Jar Jar will probably be back —Toki Barron
|
| | | | | | Is anyone still following this thread?? I now have can #13, Captain Panaka (Mt. Dew). This can says "Anakin". Does anyone have the whole message? Toki (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jul-99, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Jar Jar will probably be back —Greg Majewski
|
| | | | | | Umm, just for the record, unless this has already been posted (Don't think so though), #5 is Jabba the Hutt and he says "their." Greg (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jul-99, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Jar Jar will probably be back —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) Hmmm, good idea. Wouldn't that just be too obvious? :-/ I'll post another message (closer to the root in the thread hierarchy, which will put it down at the bottom of the thread-view) with the info I've got. Steve (25 years ago, 22-Jun-99, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | |
