Return of the Jedi is great

[hardercore]

Originally Posted by Egon's Ghost

I've seen it only once, and have been trying, since 1997, to erase it from my memory with copious amounts of beer.

Anybody know if that sequence (the CGI band in ROTJ) is a complete chapter in the DVD? Because then, just one push of a button and it'd all go away. And then we shall have peace.

[FRwL]

I think people are taking these movies too seriously, these films are glorified Flash Gordon & Western serials, the Emperor isn't some Shakespearean villain, but more like Ming the Merciless, just not as corny. And like Giantrobo said, people are complaining about Luke being a badass in the first act? He's taking out lowly gangster scum not facing off against Sith lords here, which i think we at least deserve after two films of him leading attacks in ship battles.

[Joe Molotov]

Originally Posted by Artman

now that I think about it, the absolute best has to be "our cruisers can't repel firepower of that magnitude!"

Cracks me up every time...

Admiral Ackbar was always so negative. First it's "Our cruisers can't repel firepower of that magnitude!" so then Lando decides to move in closer to the Star Destroyers and then it's "At that close range we won't last long against those Star Destroyers."

[Paul_SD]

Originally Posted by FRwL

I think people are taking these movies too seriously, these films are glorified Flash Gordon & Western serials, the Emperor isn't some Shakespearean villain, but more like Ming the Merciless, just not as corny. And like Giantrobo said, people are complaining about Luke being a badass in the first act? He's taking out lowly gangster scum not facing off against Sith lords here, which i think we at least deserve after two films of him leading attacks in ship battles.

-Well thats the all purpose response to deflate any criticism about anything entertainment related- you're taking it too seriously.
Batman & Robin didn't suck, you're just taking these things way too seriously.
I was impressed and surpised that Empire took the characters and the situations as seriously as they did. I was greatly disappointed when Jedi didn't.

-I would take Max Von Sydow's Ming over Ian McDiarmid's Emperor any day.
just a personal preference but I found Ming a more interesting, more entertaining character. There is really nothing about the Emperor I find interesting or unique, certainly not his 'master plan', which could be sumarized in a one line sentence written in crayon- which would be appropriate given the age level the material is now solely targeted at.

-Luke facing off the gangster scum points out why Lucas's philosophy here is basically bullshit. There is absolutely no moral or ethical problem with Luke taking out these characters - even though this whole issue was forced by Han who never payed off his debt.
So it's ok to kill beings that you disagree with, as long as they have an element of the unsavory about them. But that won't lead to any 'dark side' implications- so you can basically lash out in anger ("you should have bargined Jabba, that's the last mistake you'll ever make!) and kill, just as long as its for a micro goal (his friends)
But if you put down the worst major domo in the galaxy, who actually does represent an significant impediment to the macro goal ( Freedom for the galaxy from the tyranny of the Empire)- then Lucas has to step in and say that is a big no no.

again, if this weren't annointed with a Star Wars logo, nobody would buy the horseshit philosophy behind these events here.

Doesn't have to be Shakesphere, but it should at least try to be internally consistent. If it isn't consistent, then its probably contrived. And what is even worse, is when you laddle cheap sentiment on top of a contrived situation and then people fall all over themselves praising the material as an emotional high point.

[Breakfast with Girls]

Originally Posted by Mrs.Nesbit

Yeah but look at it this way. The man is VERY old, filled with the dark side of the force, and has been ruler of the galaxy for 20+ years. I think his character in Jedi is pulled off perfectly.

Oh--Palpatine. I thought you were talking about Lucas for a minute.

[Lt Ripley]

Originally Posted by Paul_SD

-Well thats the all purpose response to deflate any criticism about anything entertainment related- you're taking it too seriously.
Batman & Robin didn't suck, you're just taking these things way too seriously.
I was impressed and surpised that Empire took the characters and the situations as seriously as they did. I was greatly disappointed when Jedi didn't.

-I would take Max Von Sydow's Ming over Ian McDiarmid's Emperor any day.
just a personal preference but I found Ming a more interesting, more entertaining character. There is really nothing about the Emperor I find interesting or unique, certainly not his 'master plan', which could be sumarized in a one line sentence written in crayon- which would be appropriate given the age level the material is now solely targeted at.

-Luke facing off the gangster scum points out why Lucas's philosophy here is basically bullshit. There is absolutely no moral or ethical problem with Luke taking out these characters - even though this whole issue was forced by Han who never payed off his debt.
So it's ok to kill beings that you disagree with, as long as they have an element of the unsavory about them. But that won't lead to any 'dark side' implications- so you can basically lash out in anger ("you should have bargined Jabba, that's the last mistake you'll ever make!) and kill, just as long as its for a micro goal (his friends)
But if you put down the worst major domo in the galaxy, who actually does represent an significant impediment to the macro goal ( Freedom for the galaxy from the tyranny of the Empire)- then Lucas has to step in and say that is a big no no.

again, if this weren't annointed with a Star Wars logo, nobody would buy the horseshit philosophy behind these events here.

Doesn't have to be Shakesphere, but it should at least try to be internally consistent. If it isn't consistent, then its probably contrived. And what is even worse, is when you laddle cheap sentiment on top of a contrived situation and then people fall all over themselves praising the material as an emotional high point.

The baddies on the skiffs were armed, trying to kill them. I see it as self defense. Luke was attempting to "turn" his father. The moment when the Emperor was telling Luke to kill Vader, Vader was unarmed, AND even though Vader was a big baddy, he was still his father.

Did you even watch ROTJ?

[Ky-Fi]

Originally Posted by Breakfast with Girls

Oh--Palpatine. I thought you were talking about Lucas for a minute.

5/5

[Paul_SD]

Originally Posted by Lt Ripley

The baddies on the skiffs were armed, trying to kill them. I see it as self defense. Luke was attempting to "turn" his father. The moment when the Emperor was telling Luke to kill Vader, Vader was unarmed, AND even though Vader was a big baddy, he was still his father.

Did you even watch ROTJ?

Interesting how (the screenwriters don't feel a need to have) Han expressing any remorse for the situation his friends are in because of him- i.e. when they are all facing death. All he does is make witless wisecracks.
He was the one who dealt with gangsters and moved in their world. He was the one who welched on the deal and then snuck off rather having to pay off his debt (what the hell did he do with that reward anyway?). What Han got was mob justice.

But that doesn't make the actions of any of the others any more savory or ethical. Luke was the one who came in force choking guards, and waving a blaster around making demands (albeit ineptly).

it would be one thing if Luke went nuts on the barge and then had a horrifying moment of clarity where he realized that he must be descended from someone like Vader after all, and that he could lose control at any time as he surveys the carnage around him- it would at the very least, give the character more rationale for staying his hand from finishing the job later in the film.
but that kind of depth (and thematic coherency) is far beyond this film. It's all just surface and superficial posing.

[Lt Ripley]

Originally Posted by Paul_SD

Interesting how (the screenwriters don't feel a need to have) Han expressing any remorse for the situation his friends are in because of him- i.e. when they are all facing death. All he does is make witless wisecracks.
He was the one who dealt with gangsters and moved in their world. He was the one who welched on the deal and then snuck off rather having to pay off his debt (what the hell did he do with that reward anyway?). What Han got was mob justice.

But that doesn't make the actions of any of the others any more savory or ethical. Luke was the one who came in force choking guards, and waving a blaster around making demands (albeit ineptly).

it would be one thing if Luke went nuts on the barge and then had a horrifying moment of clarity where he realized that he must be descended from someone like Vader after all, and that he could lose control at any time as he surveys the carnage around him- it would at the very least, give the character more rationale for staying his hand from finishing the job later in the film.
but that kind of depth (and thematic coherency) is far beyond this film. It's all just surface and superficial posing.

Han was asked to join them, then given a guilt trip by her royal highness when he was going to take the reward and leave. Blame the princess for that.

Luke's whole plan for confronting Vader was to "turn" him. It makes perfect sense for him not to have killed him.

It seems you are trying to look way too deep to justify your position. It is Star Wars, not philosophy class.

[Paul_SD]

Originally Posted by Lt Ripley

It seems you are trying to look way too deep to justify your position. It is Star Wars, not philosophy class.

nah. I'm just trying to illustrate why I feel this film is in no way a worthy follow-up to SW and ESB. and given that its the third, resolving act, of a three film story, makes it all the more regretable.

Look, most of you guys bonded with this movie when you were ankle biters. I know no amount of serious disection and analysis is going to convince you this movie actually is insulting your intelligence. I just want to try to make it clear it's more than just muppets and teddy bears that is the reason this film is not held in high regard by (a lot of) people.

[Lt Ripley]

Originally Posted by Paul_SD

nah. I'm just trying to illustrate why I feel this film is in no way a worthy follow-up to SW and ESB. and given that its the third, resolving act, of a three film story, makes it all the more regretable.

Look, most of you guys bonded with this movie when you were ankle biters. I know no amount of serious disection and analysis is going to convince you this movie actually is insulting your intelligence. I just want to try to make it clear it's more than just muppets and teddy bears that is the reason this film is not held in high regard by (a lot of) people.

Believe me, I don't hold it in high regard either, and I grew up with it.
I rank them:
1 ESB
2 ANH
3 ROTJ
4 TPM (Love the final duel)
5 ROTS
6 AOTC

[Dave7393]

Originally Posted by Paul_SD

He was the one who welched on the deal and then snuck off rather having to pay off his debt (what the hell did he do with that reward anyway?). .

Even before the Death Star battle in SW, Han wants to leave immediately and pay off his debt. In ESB, he again intends to pay of his debt (as the above poster mentioned), but ends up rescuing the princess instead.

We can assume that the reward money was still on the Falcon when he landed on Cloud City, and was most likely confiscated by the Empire when they raided it (deactivating the hyperdrive, etc).

[Giantrobo]

Originally Posted by Joe Molotov

Admiral Ackbar was always so negative. First it's "Our cruisers can't repel firepower of that magnitude!" so then Lando decides to move in closer to the Star Destroyers and then it's "At that close range we won't last long against those Star Destroyers."

That's because Ackbar thought the battle would be like shooting fish in a barrel.

[Giantrobo]

Originally Posted by Lt Ripley

The baddies on the skiffs were armed, trying to kill them. I see it as self defense. Luke was attempting to "turn" his father. The moment when the Emperor was telling Luke to kill Vader, Vader was unarmed, AND even though Vader was a big baddy, he was still his father.

Did you even watch ROTJ?

Or EMPIRE? Vader had been pondering his relationship with Luke since Empire so his "sudden" change wasn't so sudden. Also, The Emperor and Vader were both looking to cornhole each other over Luke. So it made sense that he would kill the Emperor to protect Luke. Apparently there's very little loyalty between Siths.

[Giantrobo]

Originally Posted by Paul_SD

Interesting how (the screenwriters don't feel a need to have) Han expressing any remorse for the situation his friends are in because of him- i.e. when they are all facing death. All he does is make witless wisecracks.
He was the one who dealt with gangsters and moved in their world. He was the one who welched on the deal and then snuck off rather having to pay off his debt (what the hell did he do with that reward anyway?). What Han got was mob justice.

But that doesn't make the actions of any of the others any more savory or ethical. Luke was the one who came in force choking guards, and waving a blaster around making demands (albeit ineptly).

it would be one thing if Luke went nuts on the barge and then had a horrifying moment of clarity where he realized that he must be descended from someone like Vader after all, and that he could lose control at any time as he surveys the carnage around him- it would at the very least, give the character more rationale for staying his hand from finishing the job later in the film.
but that kind of depth (and thematic coherency) is far beyond this film. It's all just surface and superficial posing.

Dude. All your issues lay soley at Lucas' trypewriter. He's a simplistic writer and most of us, at least the ones not in love with "Emperor Greybeard", came to terms with this fact years ago.

[Giantrobo]

Ok, silly quesion but I need to get a definative answer...

In "Return of the Jedi", who's the "Jedi" that's returning?

Vader or Luke? It may seem like an obvious question but I'll bet more people are confused by the title than you think. Or it could just be me.

It's like "Shawshank Redemption". It's not Andy who'd being redeemed...

[Supermallet]

I always took it to mean the Jedi order would be returning, since Luke now represented the first of a new order. So it would be Jedi as a collective.

[Giantrobo]

Originally Posted by Suprmallet

I always took it to mean the Jedi order would be returning, since Luke now represented the first of a new order. So it would be Jedi as a collective.

So "jedi" is like a plural word. I got that, makes sense.

[Paul_SD]

Originally Posted by Dave7393

Even before the Death Star battle in SW, Han wants to leave immediately and pay off his debt. In ESB, he again intends to pay of his debt (as the above poster mentioned), but ends up rescuing the princess instead.

We can assume that the reward money was still on the Falcon when he landed on Cloud City, and was most likely confiscated by the Empire when they raided it (deactivating the hyperdrive, etc).

you're right. That wasn't a fair charcterization.
Him intending to pay Jabba back makes his fate as a wall hanging kind of ironic (which I can dig).

Dude. All your issues lay soley at Lucas' trypewriter. He's a simplistic writer and most of us, at least the ones not in love with "Empe
ror Greybeard", came to terms with this fact years ago.

I think Kurtz was the Lennon to Lucas's McCartney. With him co-producing and Lucas distracted with other things and delegating authority, you get material like Empire Strikes Back. Without him, and with Lucas, unchecked by a studio, and calling all the shots, you get a bunch of hummable but toothless melodies.

Or EMPIRE? Vader had been pondering his relationship with Luke since Empire so his "sudden" change wasn't so sudden. Also, The Emperor and Vader were both looking to cornhole each other over Luke. So it made sense that he would kill the Emperor to protect Luke. Apparently there's very little loyalty between Siths.

now who's reading more into the material than is really there?
where is there ever any indication that Vader could be planning anything contrary to his masters wishes? And if he were, why would he have waited 20 years to do it? was Jason's mutant hallucinogen wearing off?
I also just don't get the whole "if you don't come out so I can kill you- I'll turn your sister to the dark side..." which leads to him being beat in such a humiliating fashion that then leads to him finally 'seeing the light'.
Just seems real convienent to me.

let me put it this way- For everyone that was disappointed in X3- Imagine the scene where the now powerless Magneto sacrifices himself by going up against Phoenix to save the humans and the X-men, because now that he is human he suddenly completely understands and sympathizes with their POV. Imagine something that asinine and then you can understand how I view the similar events in Jedi.

[Nesbit]

Originally Posted by Paul_SD

now who's reading more into the material than is really there?
where is there ever any indication that Vader could be planning anything contrary to his masters wishes? And if he were, why would he have waited 20 years to do it? was Jason's mutant hallucinogen wearing off?
I also just don't get the whole "if you don't come out so I can kill you- I'll turn your sister to the dark side..." which leads to him being beat in such a humiliating fashion that then leads to him finally 'seeing the light'.
Just seems real convienent to me.

Vader asked Luke to join him and overthrow the Emperor at the end of ESB.

Vader wasn't trying to get Luke to come out so that he could kill him. He was trying to get Luke to come out and turn to the dark side. He was saying that if Luke doesn't join the dark side than, "Perhaps she will." It was a way to fuck with Luke and get him to give into the dark side.

[Paul_SD]

Originally Posted by Mrs.Nesbit

Vader asked Luke to join him and overthrow the Emperor at the end of ESB.

So you take the villans words at face value?
That's one way to interpret it of course, but to me I always felt that Vader was trying to seduce Luke over to his side with this line of reasoning.
Brute force wasn't working, so the smart thing to do then would be to appeal to Luke on an emotional/intellectual level. "we share the same goals..join me, let's accomplish them"
But nothing Vader says to Luke conflicts with his earlier pledge to the Emperor that luke will "join us or die".
If Luke had suddenly went "ok I'll join you"- that's it. Vader has him in the fold just like he pledged he would do. Luke would have effectively crossed over and then Vader could string him along almost eternally. "so when we overthrowing Palapatine?" "soon my son, just a little longer...first there is something else you have to do ..."

If Vader had actually been intending to overthrow the guy, we would have had scenes showing him undermining his authority, or doing things behind his back. These never happen. It would have been a much better story if they had, but they just aren't there. Vader is simply servile until the last few minutes where his motivation spins around 180 degrees.

[Nesbit]

Originally Posted by Paul_SD

So you take the villans words at face value?

Why wouldn't I? Also in The Phantom Menace Yoda tells Mace that there are only ever two sith, "No more. No less." Why wouldn't Vader want to rule the galaxy with his son?

As far as there being nothing in the OT that shows that Vader is trying to overthrow the Emperor what about the new dialog between the Emperor and Vader in ESB. It wasn't needed to get the point across because of Vader's hunt for Luke on Hoth but it made it clearer for some people.

[Egon's Ghost]

Originally Posted by hardercore

Anybody know if that sequence (the CGI band in ROTJ) is a complete chapter in the DVD? Because then, just one push of a button and it'd all go away. And then we shall have peace.

I would be pushing the button a hell of a lot; the movie would be 10 minutes long. But, I'll never know.

[nodeerforamonth]

Say all the good things you want about ROTJ, but it still has the Ewoks.

[DRG]

Originally Posted by brianluvdvd

6. The Luke/Leia brother/sister thing. I just try to ignore it even to this day.

This is really my only major complaint with RotJ. It seemed like it was added on as an excuse to gracefully take Luke out of the Han/Leia/Luke love triangle. Sheer chemistry and everything else proceeding it should have been reason enough to have justified Han & Leia together, but I suppose Lucas might have felt like Luke had "lost" Leia to Han and it might've pissed off Luke fans. But eliminate the need for competition altogether with a last minute revelation and voila, problem solved!