Hmmm, given the excessive amount of storyline given to the political, economic and legislative machinations of the Republic and the theory seems plausible. I only have one problem: Surely ArtFizz has enough sense to know that JarJar Binks was just a bad character idea from the start. I bet he even has a table or chart outlining why.
ArtFizz or George Lucas???
Sort:
TheGrobe wrote:
Hmmm, given the excessive amount of storyline given to the political, economic and legislative machinations of the Republic and the theory seems plausible. I only have one problem: Surely ArtFizz has enough sense to know that JarJar Binks was just a bad character idea from the start. I bet he even has a table or chart outlining why.
God... Don't get me started on Jar Jar!
Definitely, Dan_V. Only a madman can be behind Star Wars Episode III, panned by critics as a steaming pile of .. err.. sith
. According to all reports, it is impossible to be more unimpressed by this latest offering. Just look at the two pics. Notice the light of sanity, clear as day, in the eyes of Lucas? Now look at the man on the right ...
It's been over an hour and no one has even attempted to tie in the censored, censored or censored into the conspiracy. And I thought I was among higher thinkers.
Pah!
EDIT: I'd like to thank TheGrobe for saving me from certain extermination -- accidental, of course. There's nothing to see here. Move along.
Sir, the high thinkers among us know that to invoke such esteemed organizations -- none of which exist, of course, would be to invite certain extermination -- accidental, of course.
now we know how the Ewoks came about
Aug 24, 2009
0
#9
'....Lost Ark' Tony, I think is was good, agree what u said about the star wars still like the 4-6.
Aug 25, 2009
0
#10
Raiders 1-3 all good, but the last one....again goes back to the main theory!
So Mr. George "ArtFizz" Lucas...
Was it Spielberg's or your idea for the whole "Let's put Dr. Jones in the refridgerator" scene? Shame. Shame on you both.
The original was a b movie. How can something that starts out ruined become ruined by sequels?
Aug 27, 2009
0
#15
bigpoison wrote: The original was a b movie. How can something that starts out ruined become ruined by sequels?
"A studio's big, expensive movies were known as “A” features. Its cheaper ones made with lesser talent were known as “B” movies. Because A features would presumably make more money, studios would designate promising scripts and projects as A, and granted them higher production and publicity budgets. Of course, this system didn't always reflect the tastes of the public. Many A movies were flops, while some B movies (and B movie actors) ended up being far more successful than anyone had hoped. This is what happened with one of the most popular and beloved movies of all time, Casablanca." http://encarta.msn.com/sidebar_761594232/casablanca_becomes_a_hit.html
Fair enough, Mr. Fizz.
Aug 27, 2009
0
#18
I just bought a copy of the original editions of Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, & Return of the Jedi from Amazon (which required some searching..). Now I can replace my current trilogy of the interfered-with re-releases and finally see the movies I loved as a kid for, like, the second time ever.
(Well, ok, I saw them all more than once in the theatre back in the day, so maybe it's the 3rd or 4th time ever.. but still, it's been too long.)
"Han shot first!" Peace.
I appreciated the re-releases. I liked most of the 3-D additions such as on Tatooine. That scene with Jaba in the hanger talking to Han was Bantha poodoo. Nonetheless, seeing that previously unreleased film was neat.
I wasn't born "back in the day", but did get to see the re-releases in the theatre. Does that count? Does it also count that I never, ever saw the new 1st, 2nd and 3rd episodes? 
I have a theory that George Lucas was kidnapped, and it was Artfizz who really ruined the new Star Wars episodes....