Post your Revenge of the Sith Reviews and Commentary here!

[Zoid]

Originally posted by JohnT




Any human would recoil at the thought of leaving their own children in the predicament that Padme left hers.

I don´t even flinch at the thought, so I guess I´m not human...

My wife upon leaving: "Does George Lucas have children?"

I asked her why.

"What sort of woman would just up and die, leaving her kids behind?"

One that thinks that the kids would be cared for even if she died? I guess she figured she´d done her part and could move on.

[Kuciwalker]

eh, JohnT has provided actual evidence... ergo they aren't bald assertions.

[JohnT]

I don´t even flinch at the thought, so I guess I´m not human...

Guess not.

[JohnT]

This debate has moved from the silly to the pathetic and has now entered the realm of the inane.

Time for Sava to make an entrance...

[Dis]

star wars is evil I tell you.

2 British dumbass injure themselves performing a light saber duel.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/4575291.stm

[Japher]

Still haven't seen it.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

So non-fans know the title "Star Wars," but don't know there was an actual movie called "Star Wars?"

Yes... a series name doesn't mean there was a movie with that name.

No one said that, but MOST OFTEN, that's what happens, as I pointed out.

Indiana Jones series, Rambo trilogy, and A Man With No Name Trilogy all bear that out.

I reiterate:

"You've cited three examples. Now, should I choose to cite all the examples wherein the name of the original film and the name of the series were identical, do you want to take a guess as to how exponentially longer a list it would be than your three?"

I gave about 6 or so in the Godfather thread, and could go on at length for more.

Non fans know the series as Star Wars, but don't know the names of the individual movies or what they covered. This is shown when CNN says "Star Wars Breaks Record". It just confirms that to the non-fan that Star Wars is just the series name.

No, it doesn't. You have a really hard time with making the right conclusions logically, don't you?

All the article shows is that a news outlet referred to the current movie as "Star Wars," which is just a shortening of "Star Wars: Episode III: Revenge of the Sith." for space sake in their headline. The full title is mentioned in the actual article: "'Star Wars: Episode III -- Revenge of the Sith' sold an estimated $108.5 million worth of tickets..."

So what's the easiest thing to do when making a headline? Use "Star Wars," as most people will realize that there is a Star Wars movie coming out (having been bombarded with the marketing) and will know they mean the new one.

Star Wars has been taken as the name of the series. Unless you think that non-fans think the original 1977 movie is 'reign[ing] over box office'?

"Star Wars," as I said, is considered the name of BOTH the original 1977 movie AND the series. There's no either/or here, it's both. In this situation, it was pretty damned obvious they were referring to the new SW movie, not the original. For the clueless who might have been confused, the article itself gives the full title and explains it's the "final" installment.

This in no way supports the notion that people don't know the original film was called "Star Wars" any more than a headline touting a Rocky sequel as just "Rocky" would mean people didn't realize the first movie was called Rocky.

You are telling me that you were refering to non-fans as well? Which non-fan knows that Yoda wasn't in the first movie?

Any non-fans who have actually seen the first movie, perhaps?

Unless you're making the patently ludicrous assertion (I wouldn't be surprised at this point, however, considering the ones you've made so far) that simply by seeing the movies, one is a fan? I'll keep that in mind. Hmm, since I've seen "Rocky," I am ergo a Rocky Fan in the Imraniverse, despite the fact that I don't care for the movie a bit.

Lets be straight here, we were both talking about the fans. Only they would know that Yoda came around in ESB.

Nope, Imran. Anyone who had seen ESB would know that's where Yoda came from, fan or not.

That's just it, they [i]don't], by and large.[/q]

This was a reference to the "Episode 4," not the "first movie." I hadn't noticed your changing stance at that point.

I said that most people know the original movie is Episode 4 and/or A New Hope and refer to it as such in discussions about Star Wars over "Star Wars" when talking about the 'first movie'.

No, Imran, as I quoted twice, you asserted that anybody on the street who "hadn't lived in a cave" would know Ep.4 and ANH as the name of the first movie, and now you've asserted that these same people wouldn't have any idea the first film is called "Star Wars."

Kaak's thread is important not only because no one points out that it should just be Star Wars,

Why would they, when the official title was changed in 1997? There is utterly no need for anyone to do this! The thread had nothing to do with determining what people commonly think of the first movie being titled as.

but in the rankings people have put there are a lot of Episode 4 or A New Hope in the position for the first movie.

And for the UPTEENTH time, people who willfully contribute to a SW thread with a heavy proponderance of SW fans on it aren't a representative sample of the population. People who aren't fans of SW aren't going to be in that thread in the first place.

Um... it provides support for the argument, but have I claimed they are conclusive proof?

Anyone else get annoyed with Imran's "Um..." lines? At least once a post he uses it.

At any rate, they don't support your argument. Neither che nor Kaak supported your actual argument, you just latched on to them in your desperate grab for someone to support your silly ideas.

But you take your posters or links which agree with you and say, hey I have proof! See, no one knew the movies as Episode 4 or A New Hope before the prequals (and even after then, you say people don't know them as such!)

1) I'm not relying on individual posters, I'm relying on a sampling of people posting here to show that most people think of the movie as "Star Wars." And these are people who are, by and large, actual fans. This is directly relevant to the proposition that a majority of people think of the first movie as "Star Wars." What you have cited is not.

2) The link I provided was a lengthy article on the Star Wars ouvre, and in it there is a quote that is directly related to this stupid-ass debate. This is clearly someone with in-depth knowledge of the films who has written it. This has a bit more authority than buddies on a forum agreeing with you.

I don't pretend these are "slam dunk" evidence either, but to whit, it's far better than anything you have provided.

See, this is what I don't understand. The claiming once again that episode numbers weren't used until TPM (because you assert that they ARE in use now. Was it magic that transformed it? Your assertion that because it was explicitly refered to as Ep 1 and thus people rebranded the first movie as Ep 4 and the others likewise is silly. Why would people rebrand movies because one of the series was called something different?

Okay, so you haven't a clue what "rebranding" means. Quickie lesson: Rebranding is when a COMPANY takes a product and revamps it in some way and reintroduces it to the public in order to change public perceptions about said product. It's as simple as changing a logo to having a huge overhaul of a corporate image. The consumers don't "rebrand," the companies do.

No "magic" is needed to explain this, so you can stop being so peurile. The explanation is quite simple, and I've mentioned it before: Until TPM, NOT A SINGLE ONE of the SW films was ever, ever branded using an episode number. Never. However, starting with TPM, the films were explicitley branded with them. And it was after that point that the original trilogy was rebranded with them as well, and the 1977 Star Wars was rebranded with ANH to boot. The only "magic" that needs explaining is the voodoo that has turned your brain into a turnip over this issue.

As for Lucas' renaming, I've already shown that he made the copyright change months before the release of the Special Edition of the first movie and, yet, that didn't have a name change.

If Lucas was engaging in a vigerous campaign, why not change the name then?

Probably because the release of the Special Edition to theaters was Jan. 1997, not "months later," and it had already been well under works before he decided to change the name officially. And probably because they didn't want to change the name of the film for the major theatrical release when the knew that most people thought of the original film as simply "Star Wars," and they didn't want people thinking "A New Hope" was a new movie. Anyone with an ounce of business sense knows this wouldn't be a good idea.

They were only changed with the 2004 DVD collection, where the first movie was titled "Episode 4: A New Hope". But you say beforehand, with the prequals the change came... but since the movies were not rebranded at the time, how could that happen?

You've already proven yourself wrong on this count. You even linked to an Amazon page showing a release of the original trilogy from 2000 on VHS with the rebranding in effect. Funny how that is the first release we see of them post-TPM. Could it be because, starting with TPM, he was branding the movies by Episode number?

As for merchandising and the like. Merchandising with Yoda was accompanied with the name Star Wars, but we know that he was not in the first movie at all.

The point was that the merchandising did not mention Ep. 4 or ANH until after the prequels started being released. See, this was me addressing your original argument, not your stupid assertion that people don't know that "Star Wars" is the name of the 1977 film just because the entire series is referred to as "Star Wars," which would be because I guess you think people are completely retarded.

It was funny how you never appeared in a thread where a majority of posters agreed that "2+2=5" could exist depending on the defining of the mathematical system only a few months later... even though I bumped it on your behalf.

Feel free to dig it up again for me. Given your delusions as to who does actually agree with you here, I'd love to see it. And there's nothing "funny" about my not appearing in it, as I may have been away at that point or just never noticed it.

However, when you say "'2+2=5' could exist depending on the defining of the mathematical system," you can stop right there because then I realize you haven't a clue as to what the initial argument was about and that your argument is just a matter of redefining words to mean something else, which is utterly pointless. It's the changing of the concept that 2+2=4 which was the issue that you were initially defending. Nice try, though.

I see again we're back to you having not a shred of evidence that actually supports any of your outrageous claims. I eagerly await the next contortion of yours which will undoubtedly declare that most people refer to the original Friday the 13th movie as "ARBOR DAY MASSACRE!" or something like that.

[JohnT]

Calling it Star Wars makes more sense from a marketing standpoint than referring to it by its initials:

"Rots" scores $108 million in Box Office.

"Rots"? What's that? Why would anybody go see a movie about decaying flesh?

But seriously...

From Imran:

As for Lucas' renaming, I've already shown that he made the copyright change months before the release of the Special Edition of the first movie and, yet, that didn't have a name change.

No you didn't! I did. You have purposely dismissed any arguments made from legal documents, now you want to claim my cite as work you performed and my arguments as your own.

****, dude, at least give credit where credit is due!

Or is that something they taught you at Lawyer Tech?

[Kuciwalker]

How the hell did this argument start?

[JohnT]

I feel the thread needs a new direction...

[Japher]

"Rots"? What's that? Why would anybody go see a movie about decaying flesh?

A Zombie movie!

[lord of the mark]

with most series, godfather, etc its sufficient to say "the first movie" or "the first book" to distinguish them from the later ones. OK?

Star Wars is different.

Like if i say, "I really liked the first movie the most" somebody (Like one of POTM's friends) is gonna say "ooh, yeah, wasnt jar jar really cute? And young Anakin was cute too!"

So I usually say "the first movie, episode 4" or something like that. And im not a huge fan. I havent even seen episodes 1 and 2. I just like precision.

[Japher]

Star Wars will always be the first one, if some tells me Jar Jar was in the first one I'll slap them upside the head.

All because something is out of sequential order doesn't mean it wasn't suppose to be that way. Prequels don't become know as the first.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
How the hell did this argument start?

Well . . . . . .




a long, long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away . . . . . .

[Boris Godunov]

LotM:

Do you think that most people consider "Star Wars" to be the title of the movie released in 1977, yes or no?