• Optional@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    14 days ago

    Hey! Nerds! There is ONE Star Wars movie! Only one!

    You can waste time with your ridiculous fan fiction when your chores are done.

  • gws@programming.dev@lemm.eeEnglish
    0·
    14 days ago

    Gandalf the Grey and Gandalf the White
    And Monty Python and the Holy Grail’s black knight
    And Benito Mussolini and the Blue Meanie
    And Cowboy Curtis and Jambi the Genie
    Robocop, The Terminator, Captain Kirk, and Darth Vader
    Lo-pan, Superman, every single Power Ranger
    Bill S. Preston and Theodore Logan
    Spock, The Rock, Doc Ock, and Hulk Hogan

  • Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    0·
    14 days ago

    Wait, is that what the controversy is all about? They just updated the character with the new actor?

    I thought it was more about them putting Vader as redeemable.

    • Stovetop@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      14 days ago

      Vader was always there, it was just a matter of him being changed from the original actor to Hayden Christensen because he was more recognizable.

      But in context, it doesn’t seem to make much sense. Why does Darth Vader age down, while Obi Wan is still Alec Guinness instead of Ewan McGregor? If it’s supposed to be reflective of the last time he was “good”, why isn’t it him at the moment he decided to save his son and kill the Emperor?

    • vaguerant@fedia.io
      0·
      14 days ago

      There’s a couple of things people who don’t like it criticize. For one, the Christensen footage is from an early test for Revenge of the Sith, so he’s just weirdly glowering at the camera because he wasn’t thinking about this moment when it was filmed. That’s also why it’s just Hayden’s head comped onto Sebastian Shaw’s body.

      Then there’s obviously the question of … why Hayden Christensen at all? The implication is that the “real” Anakin Skywalker died decades ago and was replaced by Darth Vader, which kind of runs counter to the idea that he was ultimately redeemed by his love for his son as presented in the original cut.

      Then you’ve got the fact that it kind of makes the original trilogy nonsensical in standalone. If you come to Star Wars and watch 4-5-6 first, there’s some random guy you don’t know at the end. It forces you to watch at least 1-2 and probably 3 first, or do something wacky like the Machete order (4-5-2-3-6), just so that the ending makes sense.

      If you haven’t figured it out yet, I don’t like it myself. But I don’t care because I’ve got the Despecialized editions, so Maclunkey it up.

      • Druid@lemmy.zipEnglish
        0·
        13 days ago

        What’s the point of the machete order? Is 2-3 interspersed before 6 like a flashback or something?

        • vaguerant@fedia.io
          0·
          13 days ago

          Yeah, exactly. The goal is to preserve the reveal of Darth Vader’s real identity. If you just watch them in number order, the prequels spoiler the original trilogy. With the Machete order, you get the Vader reveal in Empire, then a “flashback” that explains how it happened.

          Skipping Phantom Menace is just because the guy who came up with the Machete order didn’t like it and felt you got enough context from 2-3. But you can do roughly the same thing without skipping it by just going 4-5-1-2-3-6.

          • Druid@lemmy.zipEnglish
            0·
            13 days ago

            Interesting and actually makes a lot of sense. Though I’m not sure how many would actually benefit from that order outside new, younger Star Wars fans since everyone knows the reveal. Still a cool concept.

            Disservice to my favourite one of them, Phantom Menace, but I get it. It’s just not really important in the grant scheme of things. It’s definitely got the coolest final fight imo, outside maybe RotS.

            • Stovetop@lemmy.worldEnglish
              0·
              13 days ago

              For what it’s worth, the machete order has been a thing for a long while now, but it was only more recently that the prequel trilogy was somewhat “redeemed” when the politicking became a lot more applicable and relatable to those earlier audiences who were likely very bored of it all as teenagers/young adults.

              I would say the Phantom Menace is seen as a better movie today than it was back then, even though it’s a slow burn to get started, because it shows the early stages of a collapsing democracy that underlies the events of the following two movies. Everything is weighed down by bureaucracy, there are minor conflicts which escalate into something larger, people turning a blind eye to injustices like slavery, etc.

  • AtariDump@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    14 days ago

    If I got this right from l to r:

    •The Groundhog (from either Groundhog’s Day or Caddyshack)
    •Ted & Bill
    •RoboCop
    •The Indian Chief from Ernest Goes to Camp