or Connect
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › STAR WARS: EPISODE VII Pre-Release
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

STAR WARS: EPISODE VII Pre-Release - Page 14

post #651 of 8983

I don't think action should be the #1 priority for Star Wars, believe it or not. TPM had a spectacular action sequence and it was an otherwise shitty movie. ANH's "action sequences" were all about space battles (which is something I think Johnson has shown he could probably do, looking at The Rocketeer).

post #652 of 8983

Let Kathryn Bigelow wet her beak on one of these, she can set up a college fund for her grandkids' grandkids. 

post #653 of 8983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul C View Post

Well Tarantino's movies were hardly watered down or Disnified, were they?

 

His movies were released by Miramax...the Disney logo never preceded his films.  Miramax was owned by Disney in name only, and they had virtually zero input into Tarantino's films.  Tarantino had 100% autonomy and did whatever he wanted...in fact your average moviegoer had no idea Miramax was owned by Disney.  There was never any chance his films would be watered down, otherwise he would've left and made his films for somebody else.

 

Lucasfilm was bought by Disney, but it is no longer run by George Lucas.  It is now pretty much, for all intents and purposes, just another production company for the most part, there to provide Disney with the built in potentially multi-billion dollar Star Wars franchise.  Disney buying Lucasfilm without Lucas would be like Disney buying Miramax without Bob and Harvey Weinstein.  

 

Kennedy is running it but she reports directly to Alan Horn (as it said in the press release), who runs Disney.  And since Disney is financing these Star Wars films for hundreds of millions, they will absolutely have input into those films.  Lucasfilm is not Kennedy's company...I'm sure she has Lucas' best interest at heart, but now she has bosses, bosses that Lucas did not have to answer to when the company was autonomous.  When the Star Wars sequels are released they will be preceded by the Lucasfilm and Disney logos...everyone will know they are Disney films. 

 

So the two situations aren't even remotely similar.  That's why Tarantino's comment is so dead on.  He's not saying the prequels didn't suck, he's saying at least they were Lucas creations.  It was basically one man's vision (the prequels and the OT)  "The Simon West version of Star Wars" means it is no longer a legacy by one man, that would've died with him (probably), but another studio commodity, there to be sequelized into infinity and rebooted every 10 or 15 years, and at a certain point barely recognizable from what it once was.


Edited by Ambler - 11/11/12 at 2:06pm
post #654 of 8983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post

So the two situations aren't even remotely similar.  That's why Tarantino's comment is so dead on.  He's not saying the prequels didn't suck, he's saying at least they were Lucas creations.  It was basically one man's vision (the prequels and the OT)  "The Simon West version of Star Wars" means it is no longer a legacy by one man, that would've died with him (probably), but another studio commodity, there to be sequelized into infinity and rebooted every 10 or 15 years, and at a certain point barely recognizable from what it once was.

 

Well that's basically true, but it would've been true no matter who owned the company, and most likely even if they'd stayed independent. Disney and the new Lucasfilm both want the same thing - massively popular Star Wars movies that can help sustain the franchise indefinitely. Kathleen Kennedy isn't some no-name corporate stooge, she was basically Spielberg's right hand woman. So long as she gets the job done, I don't see much reason to assume Disney would meddle any more than they've meddled with Pixar and Marvel.

 

I expect the new Star Wars movies will be blandly inoffensive and play it safer than safe - less interesting movies than the prequels most likely. But I don't think the Disney thing is that crucial a factor.

post #655 of 8983
Quote:
Originally Posted by brandhay View Post

Let Kathryn Bigelow wet her beak on one of these, she can set up a college fund for her grandkids' grandkids. 

 

That.....could be interesting.

post #656 of 8983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul C View Post

I expect the new Star Wars movies will be blandly inoffensive and play it safer than safe - less interesting movies than the prequels most likely.

 

I think that's pretty much what Tarantino was getting at with his Simon West comment...

post #657 of 8983
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Prankster View Post

I actually really like Schwartz's idea of Drew Goddard...

 

 

Tim's idea.  But a good one.

post #658 of 8983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post

So the two situations aren't even remotely similar.  That's why Tarantino's comment is so dead on.  He's not saying the prequels didn't suck, he's saying at least they were Lucas creations.  It was basically one man's vision (the prequels and the OT)  "The Simon West version of Star Wars" means it is no longer a legacy by one man, that would've died with him (probably), but another studio commodity, there to be sequelized into infinity and rebooted every 10 or 15 years, and at a certain point barely recognizable from what it once was.

 

I think that might be overstating things a bit. Star Trek still very much remains Gene Roddenberry's legacy, as does James Bond for Ian Fleming. And both of those franchises have managed to survive independent of their creators in a form true to their origins. 

 

I certainly understand Tarantino being reflexively defensive of auterism, but if there's one thing Disney knows, it's how to maintain a brand. 

post #659 of 8983
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCD View Post

I certainly understand Tarantino being reflexively defensive of auterism, but if there's one thing Disney knows, it's how to maintain a brand. 

 

But what brand will they be maintaing? The OT brand or the PT brand - both are wildly differing.

 

Just looking at those new Hobbit behind the scenes shots makes me worry that theres no time to build whatever practicle sets will be needed for this new sequel which makes me more worried that although George Lucas is out of the picture, will they continue to shoot these things on nothing but vast green screen sets? Lets be honest, Disney have just shelled out $4bn and they'll be looking for the most cost-effective way of making these things.

post #660 of 8983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stale Elvis View Post

 

But what brand will they be maintaing? The OT brand or the PT brand - both are wildly differing.

 

Just looking at those new Hobbit behind the scenes shots makes me worry that theres no time to build whatever practicle sets will be needed for this new sequel which makes me more worried that although George Lucas is out of the picture, will they continue to shoot these things on nothing but vast green screen sets? Lets be honest, Disney have just shelled out $4bn and they'll be looking for the most cost-effective way of making these things.

 

Another way of looking at it is that Disney just paid $4 billion, and they're going to want to protect that investment. They're in this for the long game, not a quick turn around. They need to not cock-up this first movie out of necessity. 

post #661 of 8983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post

 

I think that's pretty much what Tarantino was getting at with his Simon West comment...

 

The Expendables 2 would like to slap Quentin's bitch mouth.

post #662 of 8983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post

 

 

So the two situations aren't even remotely similar.  That's why Tarantino's comment is so dead on.  He's not saying the prequels didn't suck, he's saying at least they were Lucas creations.  It was basically one man's vision (the prequels and the OT)  "The Simon West version of Star Wars" means it is no longer a legacy by one man, that would've died with him (probably), but another studio commodity, there to be sequelized into infinity and rebooted every 10 or 15 years, and at a certain point barely recognizable from what it once was.

 

A lot of people quoting you Ambler on this, and you are may be right with how Tarantino is looking at this, but here's the issue...there is no "purity" left to Star Wars - yes, the six movies may be entrely (or mostly) Lucas' vision, but there is so much other stuff out there "Star Wars" related that is not purely his vision (cartoons, novels, potential TV series) it doesn't really even matter anymore. If Tarantino is criticizing it from that point of view, then I think he is wrong. (*GASP*)

________

However, I more think he's picturing this as "Disneyfied - safe and generic Star Wars". Not that its not Lucas' vision, but that it won't be anyones vision. Or "vision by committee". This may well be the case, as there are certainly examples of Disney doing things that way, but I think the last 5-7 years Disney has done more right with these type of properties than they've done wrong, and I think based on the other things Micheal Arndt (sp?) has done the screenwriting is a good step in the right direction. I'm going to ignore Little Miss Sunshne that everyone seems to go to with the guy and point to a more relevant example being Toy Story 3. (If for some reason you are afraid of spoilers on that movie, read no further!)

________

Now, I am not one that thinks that this movie ranks up there with 1 and 2, but it was a very solid script that used the characters and the "world" nearly perfectly. In addition, to give it good hope for a good Star Wars story I will point to the ending of TS3. For one, he created a villian that is one of the evilest in Disney history. Through most of the movie you can understand Lotso's motivation from fear of being abandoned, and while he does some cruel things in the movie, it all makes sort of sense. But at the very end, when the Buzz/Woody gang and Lotso are in the trash incinerator, and the gang saves Lotso, you expect him to have a change of heart and return the favor (this being a Disney movie), but instead he LEAVES THEM THERE TO DIE for no other reason than out of spite, showing the true evilness of the character. (And really what we all want in the "bad guy" in Star Wars, right? Remorselessly evil?

________

Secondly, he then puts the Buzz/Woody gang in a situation that litterally appears there is absolutely zero hope of escape (in an obvious homage to the trash compactor scene in Star Wars, I might add). I remember sitting in the theatre watching this movie thinking "There not really going to kill off these characters are they?" seeing no way out. He then manages to save themwhile at the same time incorporating a brilliant piece of call-back / fan-service - "The Claw!"

________

So, I must say as I think about it, I REALLY like the choice of this guy to write this movie. I've always said that its a miracle any great movies are ever made, because there are three major hurdles that ANY movie needs to get through correctly - the script, the shooting, and the editing - and two being brilliant cannot make up for the third being awful. All three have to *work* to make a great film. But, I think there starting point is a really solid choice.

post #663 of 8983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stale Elvis View Post

 

George Lucas is out of the picture, will they continue to shoot these things on nothing but vast green screen sets?

 

Why do people continue to insist that one of the bigger problems with the prequels was that it was all done with green screen sets? I would put this about 200th on the list of problems with the prequels, of which "badly written scripts" and "an inability to direct actors" would be at #1 and #2. You bring up The Hobbit, but wasn't an awful lot of the LofR trilogy - at least the big battles - done with green screen effects?
post #664 of 8983
Quote:
Originally Posted by skierpete View Post

 

Why do people continue to insist that one of the bigger problems with the prequels was that it was all done with green screen sets? I would put this about 200th on the list of problems with the prequels, of which "badly written scripts" and "an inability to direct actors" would be at #1 and #2. You bring up The Hobbit, but wasn't an awful lot of the LofR trilogy - at least the big battles - done with green screen effects?

 

Well, I think more to the point it was shitty green screen. The coliseum sequence from Attack of the Clones might as well have been shot as rear projection. 

post #665 of 8983

There are a LOT more practical effects and real scenery on display in LOTR than the prequels.

 

But no, it's not like the movies will automatically get better at the same rate green screens are produced.  Toning it down would be a good step though, if only for the sake of the actors' performances.

post #666 of 8983

I legitimately don't care what direction they go with the plot. I just want it to be filled with some characters I legitimately care about, humor, some actual sets, and a rebellious spirit of sorts (which is the least likely). I want a small name directing this thing, and that's all there is to it.

post #667 of 8983
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCD View Post

 

I think that might be overstating things a bit. Star Trek still very much remains Gene Roddenberry's legacy, as does James Bond for Ian Fleming. And both of those franchises have managed to survive independent of their creators in a form true to their origins.  

 

I think the reboot thing more than sequels is what irks me (and maybe QT).  I think Fleming died right around the second or third Bond film, so who knows how he would've felt about the character being switched for a younger model every few years.  Same with Roddenberry...I think he was okay with Trek sequels (he didn't own the franchise, so he couldn't stop them), but he didn't live long enough for the '09 reboot.  I know Lucas is aware of the reboot phenomenon, so I wonder how he feels about it.  Seeing as how he sold his company to a studio, he probably doesn't care at all.  Unless there is some clause in the deal that says Disney can't reboot.  

 

I stopped watching Star Trek after The Next Generation, because I got sick of that universe.  I felt they did a phenomenal job with the original and the next one...and I'd had my fill.  I checked out the later movies mainly because they still starred the old cast.  I had massive problems with the '09 reboot (was kind of forced into watching it), again, because not only am I sick of that universe, but I hate reboots.  They're fine for the studio because they make money, but as someone who loved the original characters, I can't stand it.  This is part of the weird attachment people have to fictional characters, but that's my choice to want to preserve my feelings for those characters.  I just don't understand how people can continually eat up a single franchise, especially when the characters keep getting shifted around.  Not a judgement call, and not aimed at anyone in particular.

 

It's part of the inevitability of Star Wars that kind of depresses me (when I think about it, and that's not very often anymore).  But I think we've exhausted that conversation.

post #668 of 8983

Personally, I'm more partial to a reboot (not that they have a great track record) than dragging the aged version of a character people are attached to back to the screen and pretending nothing's changed.  Just doing a quick inventory:

 

Old Man Sequels:  Indy 4, Rambo, Rocky 6, Die Hard 4-5, Money Never Sleeps, Godfather 3

 

Reboots:  Star Trek, Batman, Bond, X-Men, Tron (actually sort of both?), Spiderman, Bourne, The Hulk, The Punisher, Superman Returns

 

Both mixed bags, to be generous.  But if we have to see one or the other, I'd take my chances with a reboot, which at least tries to be forward-looking while it's furiously nodding at the past.

post #669 of 8983

An Episode 7 that focuses on new characters with the OT characters in supporting roles would be the best of both worlds.

post #670 of 8983

Which is probably the direction they're heading. It's most likely a Star Trek/Tron Legacy kind of deal here. A complete clean slate reboot of Star Wars would be pointless.

post #671 of 8983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post

Old Man Sequels:  Indy 4, Rambo, Rocky 6, Die Hard 4-5, Money Never Sleeps, Godfather 3

 

Wife and I went to see Skyfall, and amongst the 25 minutes of trailers were consectutively: Willis' "A Good Day to Die Hard", Schwartzneggar's "Last Stand" and Cruise's "Jack Reacher". When the last one started I turned to my wife and said "What is this? 1989?"
post #672 of 8983
Quote:
Originally Posted by skierpete View Post

 

Why do people continue to insist that one of the bigger problems with the prequels was that it was all done with green screen sets? I would put this about 200th on the list of problems with the prequels, of which "badly written scripts" and "an inability to direct actors" would be at #1 and #2. You bring up The Hobbit, but wasn't an awful lot of the LofR trilogy - at least the big battles - done with green screen effects?

 

 

I've no problem with green screen in battle scenes or wherever used in relevant scenes - but the complete use of green screen hamstrung the prequels completely. You mention an ability to direct actors, this problem was compounded completely by the fact that the actors had quite literally fuck-all to act against. A lot of the actors who appeared in final scenes together weren't even filmed together - how the fuck do you get credible performances from actors in that scenario?

 

Terrance Stamp, Terrance fucking Stamp said he played out his scenes on a green screen quoting to a tennis ball on a a stick!

post #673 of 8983
post #674 of 8983

 

Sounds just like the type of bone headed stunt a Hollywood studio would pull.  Let's bring back Vader even though it makes zero thematic or narrative sense.

post #675 of 8983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post

 

Sounds just like the type of bone headed stunt a Hollywood studio would pull.  Let's bring back Vader even though it makes zero thematic or narrative sense.

 

 

If this happens any excitement I had for this movie would be dead.

post #676 of 8983

It's exactly what I was talking about with the whole branding thing.  Disney is a studio and studios think about that stuff.  It doesn't matter if it makes any sense or not.  While the rumor may very well be bullshit, it wouldn't be surprising if it wasn't. 

post #677 of 8983
This scoop is obviously bullshit. Our tabloids over here are notorious for piecing together rumour with half truths and presenting them as fact.

Whereas Disney will do all they can to cash in on the Vader icon, remember George is creative consultant on this and there's no way in hell he'd sign off on Vader being resurrected. The whole point (if it had one) was for the prequels to retcon the original trilogy into being about Anakin's/Vader's fall/redemption, it ends with Anakin's death, Vader no longer exists hence Hayden's ghost at the end of RotJ.

The Fleet Street stooge who wrote the piece in The Express will have about 0.5% of the knowledge of the saga/franchise/industry news that exists on these boards alone, it's just some bullshit story designed to fill a corner of a newspaper.

As Arturo states though, if this indeed was the case and Lucas did sign off on this, interest in the sequels would plummet and Lucas would have sold Disney the biggest poison chalice ever.
post #678 of 8983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stale Elvis View Post

if this indeed was the case and Lucas did sign off on this, interest in the sequels would plummet and Lucas would have sold Disney the biggest poison chalice ever.

 

You can't seriously believe that.

 

The average moviegoer who drives these films to billion dollar box office isn't concerned about little things like thematic arcs.  Now I'm not saying it will happen (I realize it's probably bullshit tabloid fodder), but if Vader honestly popped up in Ep.7 it would still make in excess of $800M.  And it would still be the most anticipated film of the decade, Vader or no.  The world doesn't revolve around us little message board folk and our crazy, stupid notions of narrative logic.  

 

And I'd bet anything that bringing Vader back was at least thought about by some Disney marketing exec.

post #679 of 8983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stale Elvis View Post

This scoop is obviously bullshit. Our tabloids over here are notorious for piecing together rumour with half truths and presenting them as fact.
Whereas Disney will do all they can to cash in on the Vader icon, remember George is creative consultant on this and there's no way in hell he'd sign off on Vader being resurrected. The whole point (if it had one) was for the prequels to retcon the original trilogy into being about Anakin's/Vader's fall/redemption, it ends with Anakin's death, Vader no longer exists hence Hayden's ghost at the end of RotJ.
The Fleet Street stooge who wrote the piece in The Express will have about 0.5% of the knowledge of the saga/franchise/industry news that exists on these boards alone, it's just some bullshit story designed to fill a corner of a newspaper.
As Arturo states though, if this indeed was the case and Lucas did sign off on this, interest in the sequels would plummet and Lucas would have sold Disney the biggest poison chalice ever.

 

This. I just had to see that it came from the Express to know it was bullshit.

post #680 of 8983
I'd still rather see a film of Roger Zelazny's Lord of Light - the dead-in-the-water script in Argo - than have more Star Wars. Author Kim Newman.I HIGHLY recommend his Anno Dracula series.

 

I'm opened minded about episode 7, but after the prequels it will take a lot to make me want to pay full price to see it in a theater.

post #681 of 8983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post

You can't seriously believe that.

The average moviegoer who drives these films to billion dollar box office isn't concerned about little things like thematic arcs.  Now I'm not saying it will happen (I realize it's probably bullshit tabloid fodder), but if Vader honestly popped up in Ep.7 it would still make in excess of $800M.  And it would still be the most anticipated film of the decade, Vader or no.  The world doesn't revolve around us little message board folk and our crazy, stupid notions of narrative logic.  

And I'd bet anything that bringing Vader back was at least thought about by some Disney marketing exec.

Ok, plummet is a tad strong and not everyone is as invested in the franchise as some of us, but come on, if you found out the big bad for the sequels was a resurrected Vader you'd be pretty pissed.

The prequel trilogy fucked the original trilogy from behind and now the sequel trilogy could fuck it from the front. It's like the original trilogy is involved in some sort of abusive spit-roast.

It will never happen though.
post #682 of 8983
They should have Dengar rescue Boba Fett from the Sarlac. Boom. There's your villain.
post #683 of 8983
Wasn't that a storyline from one of the Star Wars Marvel comics?
post #684 of 8983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stale Elvis View Post

Wasn't that a storyline from one of the Star Wars Marvel comics?

From the novella either in Tales of the Bounty Hunters or Tales from Jabba's Palace. It's a great story and well written. Fett gets all burned horribly and messed up over the course of several weeks, watching the seals and defenses of his Mandalorian armor fail, but he has this battle of wits with the Sarlac which turns out to possess a semi sentient ancient intelligence that melds with it's victims as it digests them. Fett learns about victims from hundreds of years ago, Jedi, bad asses, etc, all who met their end in some stomach or antechamber of that beast.

Fett sets fire to leaking jetpack fuel with his flame thrower when he gets a single arm free, and gets loose from the tentacles, burning himself in the process, and uses a wrist mounted concussion rocket to start an avalanche of sand, then crawling up the sand pile and out using every bit of strength he had left.

He is found and nursed back to health by Dengar, and the two have adventures for a while, before Fett goes back on his own and reclaims the Slave I.
Edited by Dr Harford - 11/12/12 at 5:55pm
post #685 of 8983

It's actually also in one of the Marvel comics as well.

post #686 of 8983
Yeah, knew I read it somewhere.

The Marvel version was where Han saves Boba who has lost his memory, only to regain it just before falling back in.

Or something.
post #687 of 8983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Youngblood View Post

It's actually also in one of the Marvel comics as well.


Oh ok I have not read those, just the first few issues.
post #688 of 8983

 

How would that even work? Vader essentially ceased to exist at the end of Jedi. Anakin found redemption and Darth Vader was no more. It was Anakin who then died. 

 

So there's no way that will happen. But you know what very well could happen? Some dark or rogue Jedi claiming the mantle of Vader.

 

While the character of Darth Vader won't be brought back, he could be revived as a symbol. I personally have no problem with that. 

post #689 of 8983
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCD View Post

 

How would that even work? Vader essentially ceased to exist at the end of Jedi. Anakin found redemption and Darth Vader was no more. It was Anakin who then died. 

 

So there's no way that will happen. But you know what very well could happen? Some dark or rogue Jedi claiming the mantle of Vader.

 

While the character of Darth Vader won't be brought back, he could be revived as a symbol. I personally have no problem with that. 

 

 

Okay that would be kind of cool. No problem with that either since it's just an evil guy in a mask and would be shocking. In Clone Wars they brought back Darth Maul which is well........very dumb.

post #690 of 8983
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCD View Post

 

How would that even work? Vader essentially ceased to exist at the end of Jedi. Anakin found redemption and Darth Vader was no more. It was Anakin who then died. 

 

So there's no way that will happen. But you know what very well could happen? Some dark or rogue Jedi claiming the mantle of Vader.

 

While the character of Darth Vader won't be brought back, he could be revived as a symbol. I personally have no problem with that. 

I wonder if Lucas is going to get all Force Ghosty again and create some odd mythology that in order for Anakin to become a good spirit, he had to release the one for Vader. So now there are two halves sky walking the galaxy. 

 

Lucas, you genius! 

post #691 of 8983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Harford View Post


Oh ok I have not read those, just the first few issues.

Its kind of dumb, but effectively according the extended exercise in bullshit that is the EU, Boba Fett has escaped the Sarlacc twice.

post #692 of 8983

You guys have drained every ounce of curiosity and cautious optimism I had managed to feel for this project in the last page.  I hope you're happy.

post #693 of 8983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post

You guys have drained every ounce of curiosity and cautious optimism I had managed to feel for this project in the last page.  I hope you're happy.

"You have done that yourself!"

post #694 of 8983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post

You guys have drained every ounce of curiosity and cautious optimism I had managed to feel for this project in the last page.  I hope you're happy.

 

 

I am!

post #695 of 8983

 I have been, at best, cautiously optimistic; emphasis on cautious.

post #696 of 8983
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCD View Post

 

How would that even work? Vader essentially ceased to exist at the end of Jedi. Anakin found redemption and Darth Vader was no more. It was Anakin who then died. 

 

So there's no way that will happen. But you know what very well could happen? Some dark or rogue Jedi claiming the mantle of Vader.

 

While the character of Darth Vader won't be brought back, he could be revived as a symbol. I personally have no problem with that. 

 

 

Vader will probably at least make an appearance in a dream or hallucination sequence like in Empire. The temptation is just too great. 

post #697 of 8983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnotaur3 View Post

I wonder if Lucas is going to get all Force Ghosty again and create some odd mythology that in order for Anakin to become a good spirit, he had to release the one for Vader. So now there are two halves sky walking the galaxy. 

 

Lucas, you genius! 

 

How hysterical would it be if they got Hayden back to play a force ghost who gives out advice to the much older Luke? 

post #698 of 8983
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbrother View Post

 

How hysterical would it be if they got Hayden back to play a force ghost who gives out advice to the much older Luke? 

"So that thing you're about to do, I did that. Didn't work out well for me."

 

"Yeah, never go blue saber to blue saber. You'll just get your limbs lopped off."

post #699 of 8983

Stale Elvis, That was a typical...Goofy result in Marvel Star Wars Comics!  Dark Horse collected the entire run of Marvel Star Wars, and it is still...Awesome to read!  Even with...Space Rabbits!  I wouldn't mind a resurrection of Vader.  It would fit with comic book villains.  The Micronauts had to deal with Baron Karza's resurrection a few times, and he was obviously a rip off of Vader.

post #700 of 8983
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCD View Post

 

How would that even work?

 

 

 

They didn't call it the clone wars for nothin'

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Focused Film Discussion
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › STAR WARS: EPISODE VII Pre-Release