Star Wars: The Force Awakens : The prequels were better

The prequels were better

I honestly believe this. The prequels, while not the greatest, had originality. This. This is nothing more than a high budget fan film, ruined by commercials and hasbro releasing the toy's months before the damn movie even came out. Let's look at some pro's and con's;

Pros-
Amazing effects
Bringing back old characters


Con's;
*beep* story
MarReySue (for those that don't it's a play on words. A Mary Sue is a character that is so perfect at everything she does.) (I did not create the word MarReySue, saw it in another comment on here)
Bringing back the old characters just to draw in the fan base
Huge let down on the first rebel assault
Kylo Ren is a terrible villian. He makes me think of the orginal darth vader actor who also going to voice Vader as well.
Stole a fan made character (Phasma)
Using another damn deathstar (excuse me deathplanet...?)
Unfunny token black character

Re: The prequels were better

poppycock.

imo

Re: The prequels were better

Easily, all too easy.
de gustibus non est disputandum

Re: The prequels were better

Yeah. Though I don't agree with some of Lucas's decisions, it was his story, so he had every right to craft it the way he wanted it.

Re: The prequels were better

Lucas could have easily made it himself if he wanted to, but after the backlash from fans over the prequels, he said f-this and sold the lot. he has as much right to craft the story as you do.


"He's dusted, busted and disgusted, but he's ok"

Re: The prequels were better

Eh, to be honest, the Prequels were just the tip of the iceberg, since there was also his constantly re-editing the Original Trilogy (look, I could care less about some of the edits since I was born after The Original Trilogy was released, but I do think that, after his making a fuss against Ted Turner altering his own films to be in color, to the extent that he actually petitioned Congress to stop him, he should have enough integrity to NOT do the exact same thing he decried Ted Turner of doing. And more importantly, I would have respected him for changing them if he at least came clean with some of his edits, instead of acting like those WERE always in the movie [Greedo shot first comes to mind]).

And quite frankly, what put me off of George Lucas was his praising the Vietcong and going as far as to manipulate audiences into rooting for them and against America.

Also, his selling the franchise had more to do with wanting to avoid taxes than the fans.

Re: The prequels were better

Ted Turner didn't actually make those movies. He didn't produce or write or edit or direct them. He only bought them.

Lucas wrote, produced, and had final cut of the first six Star Wars movies. He had as much right to make the changes as Chaplin had to make alterations to The Gold Rush.

I also wouldn't go so far as to say that Lucas praised the Vietcong. He mythologised the war, particularly the idea that a technologically superior force was defeated by a primitive culture, but he didn't exactly analyze the philosophy of the Vietcong.

And do you have any proof that Lucas sold his company as a tax dodge?


Time to make up a new signature.

Re: The prequels were better


Ted Turner didn't actually make those movies. He didn't produce or write or edit or direct them. He only bought them.

Lucas wrote, produced, and had final cut of the first six Star Wars movies. He had as much right to make the changes as Chaplin had to make alterations to The Gold Rush.


Nevertheless, he shouldn't decry it if he himself does it himself. I know if I were to complain about altering films, I would make sure to avoid doing it myself even with my own works, specifically to avoid being labelled a hypocrite.

And regardless, even if he does have the right to change his films, he most certainly doesn't have the right to outright LIE about the changes, which he did in that 2012 Hollywood reporter interview.


I also wouldn't go so far as to say that Lucas praised the Vietcong. He mythologised the war, particularly the idea that a technologically superior force was defeated by a primitive culture, but he didn't exactly analyze the philosophy of the Vietcong.


If it was just the concept of a technologically superior force being defeated by a primitive culture, it's not like he needed to cite the Vietcong (and BTW, the Vietcong if anything got outright creamed every time, we never lost a battle against the Vietcong at all, not even politically on the battlefield, since we if anything inspired the South Vietnamese to fight against the Vietcong especially after Tet). He could have used the American Minutemen, heck, even the French Resistance as ideal analogues to get that kind of message across. And considering how he stated that he preferred the Soviet Union's ways of film making over the ways of Western filmmaking, since he doesn't have to worry about capitalism, I'd say he definitely knew and supported Communism.


And do you have any proof that Lucas sold his company as a tax dodge?


As a matter of fact, I do. Here's the link:

http://www.corson.org/archives/economics/E2012_14.htm

Re: The prequels were better

If Ted Turner had actually made those movies, there wouldn't be an issue. The problem wasn't the changes, but rather the fact that the changes were made without the consent of the artist. Lucas is very much in favor of having the artist having control over the art.

It should also be noted that Lucas didn't specifically cite the Vietcong. You may interpret it as a variation on the American Revolutionary War if you want.

And that article you linked to did not provide proof, just conjecture at best.

Time to make up a new signature.

Re: The prequels were better


If Ted Turner had actually made those movies, there wouldn't be an issue. The problem wasn't the changes, but rather the fact that the changes were made without the consent of the artist. Lucas is very much in favor of having the artist having control over the art.

Lucas didn't direct Empire Strikes Back, and only co-directed ROTJ (uncredited at that). Does that give him credence to do whatever the fk he wants, ignoring what the other artists who worked on the movies think?
Lucas also said at the time, when a movie is released to the public it becomes owned 'by the people' since it becomes part of the culture of the world.

If Star Wars had won the 1977 Best Picture Oscar for which it was nominated, who would have bounded onto the stage to accept the award? Not director George Lucas, but a man four years his senior: independent film producer Gary Kurtz.

Kurtz didn't like the idea of the 'enhancements'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKpD_w58I30

"He's dusted, busted and disgusted, but he's ok"

Re: The prequels were better

Lucas wrote the story for Empire Strikes Back, he co-wrote the screenplay for Empire Strikes Back, he oversaw the storyboards and designs for Empire Strikes Back, he did 2nd unit directing for Empire Strikes Back, worked on editing Empire Strikes Back, and hired Kershner with the understanding that Lucas would have the final edit of Empire Strikes Back.

Gary Kurtz worked to help Lucas achieve his vision, not the other way around.

It is also telling that Kurtz produced The Dark Crystal for Jim Henson, but Henson's next movie, Labyrinth, was produced by Lucas and Lucas had to be called in to help with Return to Oz when Kurtz's work proved unsatisfactory.

Time to make up a new signature.

Re: The prequels were better


If Ted Turner had actually made those movies, there wouldn't be an issue. The problem wasn't the changes, but rather the fact that the changes were made without the consent of the artist. Lucas is very much in favor of having the artist having control over the art.


Maybe, but as another user pointed out, he had little involvement in Empire Strikes Back, yet that STILL never stopped him from making edits there.


It should also be noted that <b>Lucas didn't specifically cite the Vietcong.</b> You may interpret it as a variation on the American Revolutionary War if you want.


Yeah, actually, Lucas DID specifically cite the Vietcong as an inspiration. Here's his story idea for Star Wars, dating back to 1973:


"A lot of my interest in Apocalypse Now was carried over into Star Wars…I figured I couldn’t make that film because it was about the Vietnam War, so I would essentially deal with some of the same interesting concepts that I was going to use and convert them into space fantasy, so you’d have essentially a large technological empire going after a small group of freedom fighters or human beings…a small independent country like North Vietnam threatened by a neighbor or provincial rebellion, instigated by gangsters aided by empire…The empire is like America ten years from now, after Nixonian gangsters assassinated the Emperor and were elevated to power in a rigged election; created civil disorder by instigating race riots aiding rebel groups and allowing the crime rate to rise to the point where a “total control” police state was welcomed by the people. Then the people were exploited with high taxes, utility and transport costs."



And that article you linked to did not provide proof, just conjecture at best.


What would qualify as proof to you?

Re: The prequels were better


Maybe, but as another user pointed out, he had little involvement in Empire Strikes Back, yet that STILL never stopped him from making edits there.


Lucas had a lot of involvement with Empire Strikes Back. He served as executive producer. Lucas wrote the story for Empire Strikes Back, he co-wrote the screenplay for Empire Strikes Back, he oversaw the storyboards and designs for Empire Strikes Back, he did 2nd unit directing for Empire Strikes Back, worked on editing Empire Strikes Back, and hired Kershner with the understanding that Lucas would have the final edit of Empire Strikes Back.

In other words, the only thing that Lucas didn't do with Empire Strikes Back was be the primary director.


Yeah, actually, Lucas DID specifically cite the Vietcong as an inspiration. Here's his story idea for Star Wars, dating back to 1973:


And yet those same specifications could be applied to the American Revolutionary War or even the rise of fascism in Europe in the 1930's.


What would qualify as proof to you?


A direct quote from Lucas.

Time to make up a new signature.

Re: The prequels were better


And yet those same specifications could be applied to the American Revolutionary War or even the rise of fascism in Europe in the 1930's.


Not really. There were differing circumstances with the Revolutionary War. We got fed up with being taxed due to the French and Indian War, and it had absolutely NOTHING to do with an election cycle (heck, part of the reason America even HAS elections is due to the whole "no taxation without representation" thing). The Vietcong were closer to the French Revolutionaries. And for the record, when Lucas says they are Vietcong, guess what, they are Vietcong, and there's nothing you or I can do or say to change that, especially when unlike him, we have literally zero involvement save for giving him his big fat paycheck. At least, there's nothing you and I can do or say that's within moral and/or legal/ethical boundaries, unless you or I want to basically do to him what Wesker did to Spencer in Resident Evil 5: https://youtu.be/Oi_6dix_718?t=63


A direct quote from Lucas.


Yeah, like he'd actually publicly state that he sold the films to do a tax hike. Admitting to praising Vietcong's one thing, since at least there, his Hollywood buddies are going to be in the same camp as him. Admitting to committing tax fraud by selling his business? That's going to land him in jail even if the president shares his exact same politics. He's not that stupid.

Re: The prequels were better


when Lucas says they are Vietcong, guess what, they are Vietcong


The Vietnam conflict was certainly an influence, but it was not meant to be a definitive one. The central idea behind the Ewoks sequence had more to do with nature vs. technology. The movies used imagery common to the 1960's, including cruising, revolutionaries, countercultural spiritual gurus, etc.


Admitting to committing tax fraud by selling his business?


Selling a business, even for tax purposes, isn't committing fraud.

One should also consider the fact that he donated the full sale amount to charity,http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/02/george-lucas-donate-4-billion_n_2067145.html as well as half of his fortune.http://www.forbes.com/sites/briansolomon/2012/11/04/donating-star-wars-billions-will-make-george-lucas-one-of-the-biggest-givers-ever/#327e9d9a2aaa

Tax deductions for charity only covers so much. After a certain point, the income donated is also taxed.



Time to make up a new signature.

Re: The prequels were better


The Vietnam conflict was certainly an influence, but it was not meant to be a definitive one. The central idea behind the Ewoks sequence had more to do with nature vs. technology. The movies used imagery common to the 1960's, including cruising, revolutionaries, countercultural spiritual gurus, etc.


It's not JUST the Ewoks sequence, though. It's also the fact that he based the Rebel Alliance on the Vietcong since 1973 when he started writing the first film. Even Chris Trevas in his book "How Star Wars Conquered the Universe" and Walter Murch in The Conversations both made this very explicit. And he also had prior involvement in Apocalypse Now, which he also inferred was meant to demonize American involvement in Vietnam.


Selling a business, even for tax purposes, isn't committing fraud.

One should also consider the fact that he donated the full sale amount to charity,http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/02/george-lucas-donate-4-billion_n_2067145.html as well as half of his fortune.http://www.forbes.com/sites/briansolomon/2012/11/04/donating-star-wars-billions-will-make-george-lucas-one-of-the-biggest-givers-ever/#327e9d9a2aaa

Tax deductions for charity only covers so much. After a certain point, the income donated is also taxed.


It is certainly trying to avoid tax hikes that his buddies like Obama in Washington were trying to push, and he demonizes the Rich all the time and even inferred he was an Occupy Wall Street supporter before there ever was one.

Re: The prequels were better


It's also the fact that he based the Rebel Alliance on the Vietcong since 1973 when he started writing the first film.


Early drafts of the script featured a climactic battle similar to the Ewoks in Jedi. Lucas used Wookies for those drafts. It was a point that he abandoned for the initial feature, then returned to for Jedi.

And yes, Apocalypse Now was always going to be an anti-Vietnam movie.


It is certainly trying to avoid tax hikes that his buddies like Obama in Washington were trying to push


Any proof of this? Consider the fact that he donated the full sum of the sale to charity, and that only a relatively small amount of that money would have been regarded as deductible. He still paid quite a bit in taxes.

Time to make up a new signature.

Re: The prequels were better


Early drafts of the script featured a climactic battle similar to the Ewoks in Jedi. Lucas used Wookies for those drafts. It was a point that he abandoned for the initial feature, then returned to for Jedi.


Yeah, and even in the final version of the film, he always maintained that the Empire was America, and the Rebels were the Vietcong, whether it be the Rebel Alliance or the Ewoks.


And yes, Apocalypse Now was always going to be an anti-Vietnam movie.


Yeah, and he still insists on trying to paint America as the bad guys and the Vietcong as the good guys, even during the Cannes 2005 film festival airing of Revenge of the Sith.


Any proof of this? Consider the fact that he donated the full sum of the sale to charity, and that only a relatively small amount of that money would have been regarded as deductible. He still paid quite a bit in taxes.


That link I supplied earlier offered the proof.

Re: The prequels were better


Yeah, and even in the final version of the film, he always maintained that the Empire was America, and the Rebels were the Vietcong


Only in the broadest sense of the term. Lucas was more generically anti-imperialist in his themes. He doesn't seem to believe that America is wrong 100% of the time, but he isn't afraid to call out and question its leaders. The Rebels could just as easily be viewed as stand-ins for the French Resistance in World War II. The movies certainly use a lot of imagery and dialogue which evokes Nazis and German soldiers, including stormtroopers, and multiple shots lifted from Triumph of the Will.


Yeah, and he still insists on trying to paint America as the bad guys and the Vietcong as the good guys


Again, it was more of an observation than a justification of placing one side over another. Lucas went and romanticized the idea and tied it into imagery from multiple other cinematic and literary genres.


That link I supplied earlier offered the proof.


That link only provided conjecture, which is undermined by the fact that Lucas went and donated all of the money from the sale to charity. Which do you think would be more profitable, keeping a business and paying the taxes on it, or selling the business and then not keeping any of the money from that sale?

Time to make up a new signature.

Re: The prequels were better


Only in the broadest sense of the term. Lucas was more generically anti-imperialist in his themes. He doesn't seem to believe that America is wrong 100% of the time, but he isn't afraid to call out and question its leaders. The Rebels could just as easily be viewed as stand-ins for the French Resistance in World War II. The movies certainly use a lot of imagery and dialogue which evokes Nazis and German soldiers, including stormtroopers, and multiple shots lifted from Triumph of the Will.


Yeah, and one of those Triumph of the Will shots was for the Rebels, ironically enough. Either way, it's in the most specific sense of the term, not the general sense, especially when he made it very clear he preferred the USSR's way of running things, and if that's not enough, both Chris Trevas and Walter Murch made explicit he was rooting for the Vietcong ever since the first movie.


Again, it was more of an observation than a justification of placing one side over another. Lucas went and romanticized the idea and tied it into imagery from multiple other cinematic and literary genres.


No, he used Vietcong propaganda and sold it to the masses. Something he and his friends bragged about repeatedly.


That link only provided conjecture, which is undermined by the fact that Lucas went and donated all of the money from the sale to charity. Which do you think would be more profitable, keeping a business and paying the taxes on it, or selling the business and then not keeping any of the money from that sale?


Me personally, if it meant trying to get myself out of paying taxes in a dirty manner, I would have KEPT a business and paid the taxes because I'm one who wishes to play fair.

Re: The prequels were better


Yeah, and one of those Triumph of the Will shots was for the Rebels, ironically enough.


Yes. Lucas is big on irony.


No, he used Vietcong propaganda and sold it to the masses. Something he and his friends bragged about repeatedly.


Any links to any of these interviews?


Me personally, if it meant trying to get myself out of paying taxes in a dirty manner, I would have KEPT a business and paid the taxes because I'm one who wishes to play fair.


You are still ignoring the most obvious scenario to fit in with your own limited worldview. The most obvious probability, considering the fact that Lucas donated all of the money from the sale, was that he simply didn't want to manage a large studio any more and wanted to explore other opportunities. The taxes he avoided by passing the property on to Disney did not exceed 4 billion dollars.

Time to make up a new signature.

Re: The prequels were better


Any links to any of these interviews?


I don't know about links, but I can give you book reviews and book excerpts.

*http://www.yomyomf.com/star-wars-is-a-metaphor-for-the-vietcong-kicking-american-ass-in-the-vietnam-war/
*http://nypost.com/2014/09/21/how-star-wars-was-secretly-george-lucas-protest-of-vietnam/

As well as The Conversations and, obviously, How Star Wars Conquered the Universe. You can also go visit Free Republic, I know there's at least ONE article on there that deals with Lucas's admission about it being a striking blow against American Imperialism. In fact, I'll even direct it to you here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3373861/posts

And there are plenty of other places you can go by typing in Star Wars George Lucas Vietcong or something along those lines.


You are still ignoring the most obvious scenario to fit in with your own limited worldview. The most obvious probability, considering the fact that Lucas donated all of the money from the sale, was that he simply didn't want to manage a large studio any more and wanted to explore other opportunities. The taxes he avoided by passing the property on to Disney did not exceed 4 billion dollars.


I took an economics and business course in College, know about supply and demand, and besides which, I actually have some degree of knowledge on how businesses work due to my Dad being an entrepreneur, not to mention one of my aunts working in the advertising/marketing industry. I can tell you this much, I certainly know the world of business far better than the guys who wrote Rise of the Planet of the Apes.

Either way, considering Lucas voiced support regarding Obama's wealth redistribution plans that would have resulted in increased taxes (and did), it's pretty obvious what he was running from. If you're going to make the bed filthy, you might as well lie in it.

Re: The prequels were better

And in none of those articles did he say he actually endorsed the ultimate worldview of the Vietcong. He recognized the war as corrupt and that we shouldn't be there, but he didn't actually say that that was how America should live.

Again, $200 million (which, according to your article was the estimated tax on Lucas's business) is considerably less than $4 billion, which Lucas then went and donated to charity (and was also taxed on that income). The more likely scenario, when one takes into consideration all of the information, is that Lucas simply wanted to sell his business and do other things.

Or, to put in in your version, Lucas, in order to avoid paying $200 million in taxes, sold his company for $4 billion, and then went and donated all of that $4 billion, most of which was still taxable, which meant he actually lost money as a result of the sale.

That really doesn't add up.

But, simply deciding that he doesn't want to manage a largish studio any longer and explore other possibilities does, especially when one considers the fact that he and his wife had just had a child together which might make Lucas decide to try to do new things.



Time to make up a new signature.

Re: The prequels were better


And in none of those articles did he say he actually endorsed the ultimate worldview of the Vietcong. He recognized the war as corrupt and that we shouldn't be there, but he didn't actually say that that was how America should live.


Except he DID say that in various other places, like saying that America's film industry should be more like the USSR since the only thing you have to worry about there is not upsetting the leader and as such you can do whatever pleases you otherwise, while in America, you're bound by commercialism (I believe it was in the very same Charlie Rose interview that had him stating that he sold Star Wars to "white slavers" in a pretty obvious reference to Disney), or how he said he's an advocate of pure democracy and not capitalism. Or how about his statements that he was a Occupy Wall Street supporter back before there was such a thing. And BTW, it's one thing to speak out against involvement in a war, it's quite another to outright root for the enemy, and Lucas did the latter, unfortunately. I know an aunt who protested during the Vietnam War yet had absolutely no love for the Vietcong, for example.

And I personally doubt the Vietnam War was ever corrupt. Actually, we went there to stop Communism. You want an actual corrupt war? Try our involvement in the Balkins, where we went to fight for our enemies at Clinton's order just because CNN reported it.


Again, $200 million (which, according to your article was the estimated tax on Lucas's business) is considerably less than $4 billion, which Lucas then went and donated to charity (and was also taxed on that income). The more likely scenario, when one takes into consideration all of the information, is that Lucas simply wanted to sell his business and do other things.

Or, to put in in your version, Lucas, in order to avoid paying $200 million in taxes, sold his company for $4 billion, and then went and donated all of that $4 billion, most of which was still taxable, which meant he actually lost money as a result of the sale.

That really doesn't add up.

But, simply deciding that he doesn't want to manage a largish studio any longer and explore other possibilities does, especially when one considers the fact that he and his wife had just had a child together which might make Lucas decide to try to do new things.


Jeffrey Katzenberg lost a lot of money when he donated to Hillary Clinton's campaign. It's nothing new. And besides, I should remind you that George Lucas actively supported Obama's promise to tax the rich. Had it been me in his shoes, I would in fact allow myself to be taxed, because it's only fair: If I supported those policies despite it being detrimental, I might as well suffer the consequences of my support.

Re: The prequels were better


Except he DID say that in various other places, like saying that America's film industry should be more like the USSR since the only thing you have to worry about there is not upsetting the leader and as such you can do whatever pleases you otherwise, while in America, you're bound by commercialism (I believe it was in the very same Charlie Rose interview that had him stating that he sold Star Wars to "white slavers" in a pretty obvious reference to Disney)


You are ignoring the fact that he is talking specifically about the movie industry and how, ironically, filmmakers had greater freedom of expression in the USSR than in the Hollywood capitalist system. Consider, as an example, the career of Hong Kong director John Woo who gained popularity in the U.S. in the early 90's on the strength of A Better Tomorrow, The Killer, and Hard Boiled. He came to the states to try his career in Hollywood rather than stay in Hong Kong when it became a part of Communist China. His American movies weren't anywhere nearly as innovative as his Hong Kong features because of constant studio interference and he has returned to China where he is currently making movies with greater autonomy. In other words, you may not like it, but what Lucas said had a lot of truth to it.


I should remind you that George Lucas actively supported Obama's promise to tax the rich.


Lucas is still rich and still paying taxes. He is working on opening up a museum and I am certain there will be taxes to be paid on that venture, as well. And even if Lucas supported it, he had no real authority in voting for it. All he could do was voice his approval. And again, ultimately, he did pay taxes, donated considerably more than what he would have been taxed for, and will pay that extra tax is paying that extra tax for any business that he is currently starting.


If I supported those policies despite it being detrimental, I might as well suffer the consequences of my support.


I somehow doubt that if you decided to sell your company that you'd donate all of the money from the sale to charity.

Time to make up a new signature.

Re: The prequels were better


You are ignoring the fact that he is talking specifically about the movie industry and how, ironically, filmmakers had greater freedom of expression in the USSR than in the Hollywood capitalist system. Consider, as an example, the career of Hong Kong director John Woo who gained popularity in the U.S. in the early 90's on the strength of A Better Tomorrow, The Killer, and Hard Boiled. He came to the states to try his career in Hollywood rather than stay in Hong Kong when it became a part of Communist China. His American movies weren't anywhere nearly as innovative as his Hong Kong features because of constant studio interference and he has returned to China where he is currently making movies with greater autonomy. In other words, you may not like it, but what Lucas said had a lot of truth to it.


What's more liberating? The fact that you can actually make movies without fear of having a bullet to the head for upsetting a high government official, even if it comes with some added baggage like making sure your movies are a success at the box office (which is life, really)? Or doing whatever you want with your movies, but if you do something that "dear leader" even considers potentially subversive, you'd either be dead or thrown into a gulag to rot? I'd consider the former to be liberating, to be honest, since at least you aren't going to end up DEAD via a bullet wound to the temple for something like that.


Lucas is still rich and still paying taxes. He is working on opening up a museum and I am certain there will be taxes to be paid on that venture, as well. And even if Lucas supported it, he had no real authority in voting for it. All he could do was voice his approval. And again, ultimately, he did pay taxes, donated considerably more than what he would have been taxed for, and will pay that extra tax is paying that extra tax for any business that he is currently starting.


Last I checked, people who did that sort of thing were demonized by the Left. Yet Lucas isn't. That article even cited an example. I honestly don't buy it. Sorry, but he was a shill for the left, always has been.


I somehow doubt that if you decided to sell your company that you'd donate all of the money from the sale to charity.


I wouldn't sell my company, but if I were to sell my company, I would do it without tax increases in mind. In fact, I'd make sure to do it on a year that ISN'T an election year. And yes, I would give it to charity, so long as I make sure the charity actually does its job beforehand.

Re: The prequels were better


The fact that you can actually make movies without fear of having a bullet to the head for upsetting a high government official


That didn't happen after Stalin. More often particular scenes were simply excised if found they didn't work to the party line, but even those standards became looser by the 1980s. Again, John Woo apparently finds it easier to make movies in Communist China than in Hollywood. Even Spielberg had trouble getting Lincoln made and released theatrically.


Last I checked, people who did that sort of thing were demonized by the Left. Yet Lucas isn't.


The article doesn't mention that Lucas donated all money from the sale to charity. That carries a lot of weight for liberals.


I would do it without tax increases in mind.


And how do you know Lucas didn't? Just because he avoided a tax increase by selling at that time doesn't mean that that was a driving motive. More likely scenarios would involve his recent fatherhood and the fact that Red Tails underperformed at the box office. Lucas probably looked at that and decided that if he kept making movies that lose money that he will destroy the company, even if he was making the movies he wanted to make. He was also considering exploring other opportunities and simply retiring. Disney gives him an offer, so he sells the company intact to Disney and in this way his employees stay employed.

Time to make up a new signature.

Re: The prequels were better


That didn't happen after Stalin. More often particular scenes were simply excised if found they didn't work to the party line, but even those standards became looser by the 1980s. Again, John Woo apparently finds it easier to make movies in Communist China than in Hollywood. Even Spielberg had trouble getting Lincoln made and released theatrically.


Yes, actually, it STILL was in effect even after Stalin. Just ask Sergei Eisenstein. And BTW, a lot of people were in fact murdered by the Soviets even AFTER Stalin's passing. Just ask Bill Sweeney. He's my uncle, and actually visited the USSR during a delegation, and he prevented an attempted raid on a church that he unwittingly endangered.


The article doesn't mention that Lucas donated all money from the sale to charity. That carries a lot of weight for liberals.


The "charity" was towards indoctrination centers. Hardly charitable, especially speaking from someone who nearly got brainwashed into believing that my fellow Catholics were genocidal maniacs.


And how do you know Lucas didn't? Just because he avoided a tax increase by selling at that time doesn't mean that that was a driving motive. More likely scenarios would involve his recent fatherhood and the fact that Red Tails underperformed at the box office. Lucas probably looked at that and decided that if he kept making movies that lose money that he will destroy the company, even if he was making the movies he wanted to make. He was also considering exploring other opportunities and simply retiring. Disney gives him an offer, so he sells the company intact to Disney and in this way his employees stay employed.


Yes, actually, that WAS a driving motive. Some of the people quoted in the article made CLEAR it was a driving motive.

And for the record, his "donations" were being supplied from what I've read to indoctrination centers (and that's EXACTLY what education is, indoctrination centers. I'd know, I had to undergo that indoctrination crap myself in High School and College, maybe even as early as Elementary School, and I actually WAS almost brainwashed. My parents and the internet taught me far more than my schools did).

Re: The prequels were better


Yes, actually, it STILL was in effect even after Stalin. Just ask Sergei Eisenstein.


Sergei Eisenstein died of a heart attack in 1948. Stalin's rule ended with his death in 1953. So to point out the very obvious, Eisenstein did not live after Stalin's rule and therefore never made any movies after Stalin's reign.


And BTW, a lot of people were in fact murdered by the Soviets even AFTER Stalin's passing. Just ask Bill Sweeney. He's my uncle, and actually visited the USSR during a delegation, and he prevented an attempted raid on a church that he unwittingly endangered.


You are ignoring the fact that Lucas was referring only to the film industry as being more open to artistic expression. He was not referring to other aspects of life in the USSR, except insofar as the irony that the USSR, a nation not known for providing its citizens with individual freedoms, granted its filmmakers more leeway towards self expression than the Hollywood Film Industry in the USA, a nation which allegedly puts a very high value on individuality.

It shouldn't be a particularly complex idea to grasp.


The "charity" was towards indoctrination centers


So you are openly opposed to education.

Here's the thing. If you were to get sick, you'd want to see a person who was "indoctrinated" in the field of medicine. If you were in need of a lawyer, you would want someone who was "indoctrinated" in the rule of law. If your car gives you trouble, you'd want to take it to someone who was "indoctrinated" in the field of automotive mechanics.

Broadly speaking, it is best to have a population who is reasonably "indoctrinated" enough to understand how to read and write, as well as basic science, math, history, literature, current events, and, most recently, computers, in order to function in a civilized society.

And also sometimes, history reveals things that most people would rather ignore or would rather pretend never happened.


Yes, actually, that WAS a driving motive. Some of the people quoted in the article made CLEAR it was a driving motive.


None of the people quoted in that article have any direct ties to Lucas. All they have is conjecture to his motives, all of which disappears when Lucas went and donated all of the money to charity. If money was truly an issue, then Lucas would have more of it by simply paying the taxes and keeping his business, or just by simply pocketing the cash from the sale.

It is an obvious point to make. One must be poorly educated not to comprehend it.


Time to make up a new signature.

Re: The prequels were better


Sergei Eisenstein died of a heart attack in 1948. Stalin's rule ended with his death in 1953. So to point out the very obvious, Eisenstein did not live after Stalin's rule and therefore never made any movies after Stalin's reign.


Maybe so, but movies still had to go through months of screening just to even be aired, IF they even get aired at all in the USSR. And it also doesn't help that most people couldn't even afford toilet paper, let alone a camera to make a film, so the USSR had a huge monopoly. Also, by the 1980s, most Soviet Russians had to import Hollywood films that were snuck in, and considered those their favorite films, that's how inherently unfree the Soviet system was.


You are ignoring the fact that Lucas was referring only to the film industry as being more open to artistic expression. He was not referring to other aspects of life in the USSR, except insofar as the irony that the USSR, a nation not known for providing its citizens with individual freedoms, granted its filmmakers more leeway towards self expression than the Hollywood Film Industry in the USA, a nation which allegedly puts a very high value on individuality.

It shouldn't be a particularly complex idea to grasp.


If they had to undergo quite a few months of screening by the Soviet Government, at times not even HAVE the film air at all, and by the 1980s, most of their populace had as their favorite films smuggled Hollywood films and few, if any of the populace actually HAVING Soviet-made films being their favorites, it shouldn't be a particularly complex idea that the Soviets lacked even artistic expressive freedom, had less than Hollywood, and certainly far less than independent studios.


So you are openly opposed to education.

Here's the thing. If you were to get sick, you'd want to see a person who was "indoctrinated" in the field of medicine. If you were in need of a lawyer, you would want someone who was "indoctrinated" in the rule of law. If your car gives you trouble, you'd want to take it to someone who was "indoctrinated" in the field of automotive mechanics.

Broadly speaking, it is best to have a population who is reasonably "indoctrinated" enough to understand how to read and write, as well as basic science, math, history, literature, current events, and, most recently, computers, in order to function in a civilized society.

And also sometimes, history reveals things that most people would rather ignore or would rather pretend never happened.


Let me tell you a bit of what my education was composed of: Several teachers going out of their way to teach that the Catholic Church, heck, Christianity as a whole, were a bunch of monsters, telling us that evolution was a confirmed fact, NOT a theory, acting like until student protests of the 1960s, women had absolutely no literacy at all, promoting the Equal Rights Amendment, praising free sex, and all of that stuff despite most if not all of that having absolutely no relevance to some of the course work whatsoever such as Chaucer, or history up to the 1500s, or any of that. Most of that was from government/public schools, but I know that Oglethorpe did the same despite it being a private institution and if anything was among the worst. Oh, and when doing an education course in the naïve hope that I would take back education from the Weathermen Underground, the class also planned to implement that horrid Common Core crap. And don't get me started on how the likes of Rousseau and Voltaire "created" education and left it crap as a result. IF I were to spare education, I'd strictly leave it to vouchers.


None of the people quoted in that article have any direct ties to Lucas. All they have is conjecture to his motives, all of which disappears when Lucas went and donated all of the money to charity. If money was truly an issue, then Lucas would have more of it by simply paying the taxes and keeping his business, or just by simply pocketing the cash from the sale.

It is an obvious point to make. One must be poorly educated not to comprehend it.


Sorry, but when he openly supports such actions proposed by Obama and the Occupy Wall Street, he definitely no longer has the right to do something like that. And BTW, donating to charities actually doesn't mean much regarding losing money. Me and my family have donated to collection baskets, which ARE a charity, and we haven't really lost much money anyhow. And either way, I at least know more about commercialism and capitalism, how businesses work, than the guys who did Rise of the Planet of the Apes did, or Matt Damon and Ben Affleck with their "Incorporated" tv crap.

Re: The prequels were better


movies still had to go through months of screening just to even be aired, IF they even get aired at all


This is actually quite common in the Hollywood studio system, with executives demanding reshoots, edits or shelving a movie for years. And international movies have to find an American distributor to get screened in American theaters, and even then, these foreign movies may be edited or altered in order to fit into what the studios feel will be American sensibilities. Examples of this includes Wages of Fear, Diabolique, Gojira (Godzilla), and even Mad Max.

In contrast to that, Russia, while they denied imports of Hollywood movies, did have a thriving film industry on their own, so while I have little doubt that a few people who smuggled in Star Wars or E.T. might come to regard those as their favorite film (in much the same way as there are people in America whose favorite movie is Miyazaki's Spirited Away, or Bergman's Scenes From A Marriage, or Fellini's La Dolce Vita, or even Tarkovsky's Stalker) most in Russia in the 1970s and 1980s would eagerly declare their favorite movie to be something along the lines of White Sun of the Desert.

https://filmschoolrejects.com/great-russian-movies-for-people-who-dont-think-they-like-russian-movies-238fb970334f#.fkl9jenr9




Let me tell you a bit of what my education was composed of: Several teachers going out of their way to teach that the Catholic Church, heck, Christianity as a whole, were a bunch of monsters, telling us that evolution was a confirmed fact, NOT a theory, acting like until student protests of the 1960s, women had absolutely no literacy at all, promoting the Equal Rights Amendment, praising free sex, and all of that stuff despite most if not all of that having absolutely no relevance to some of the course work whatsoever such as Chaucer, or history up to the 1500s, or any of that. Most of that was from government/public schools, but I know that Oglethorpe did the same despite it being a private institution and if anything was among the worst. Oh, and when doing an education course in the naïve hope that I would take back education from the Weathermen Underground, the class also planned to implement that horrid Common Core crap. And don't get me started on how the likes of Rousseau and Voltaire "created" education and left it crap as a result. IF I were to spare education, I'd strictly leave it to vouchers.


What I can gather from this bit of incoherent rambling is that you are opposed to teachers actually teaching. I will go ahead and address one bit, namely on the Theory of Evolution. This is a Scientific Theory, like the Theory of Gravity.

From Wikipedia:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed, preferably using a written, pre-defined, protocol of observations and experiments.[1][2] Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.


Evolution is why there has to be a different flu vaccine every year, because the virus strains keep evolving.


Sorry, but when he openly supports such actions proposed by Obama and the Occupy Wall Street, he definitely no longer has the right to do something like that.


One last time to explain how it works. When a person seeks to avoid taxes, the motive for doing so is to hang on to their money. I can honestly say I cannot think of another motive. Lucas went and donated all of the money from the sale to charity. He didn't slip a twenty dollar bill onto a collection plate, he gave all of the money from the sale to charity, which means, he had no money in his pocket as a result of the sale. However, one only gets tax deductions from so much income, so on top of that zero sum amount, he paid extra taxes, which means he lost money from the full deal. He is also looking to start up a new enterprise, which may very well end up being taxed under these rules. And as a private citizen, he has the right to do as he pleases.

Time to make up a new signature.

Re: The prequels were better


This is actually quite common in the Hollywood studio system, with executives demanding reshoots, edits or shelving a movie for years. And international movies have to find an American distributor to get screened in American theaters, and even then, these foreign movies may be edited or altered in order to fit into what the studios feel will be American sensibilities. Examples of this includes Wages of Fear, Diabolique, Gojira (Godzilla), and even Mad Max.

In contrast to that, Russia, while they denied imports of Hollywood movies, did have a thriving film industry on their own, so while I have little doubt that a few people who smuggled in Star Wars or E.T. might come to regard those as their favorite film (in much the same way as there are people in America whose favorite movie is Miyazaki's Spirited Away, or Bergman's Scenes From A Marriage, or Fellini's La Dolce Vita, or even Tarkovsky's Stalker) most in Russia in the 1970s and 1980s would eagerly declare their favorite movie to be something along the lines of White Sun of the Desert.

https://filmschoolrejects.com/great-russian-movies-for-people-who-dont-think-they-like-russian-movies-238fb970334f#.fkl9jenr9


No, the system you described is nothing like the Soviet system. The Soviet system tries to scrub the film of any element that would be potentially subversive against the Communist agenda. I've seen comments on YouTube pertaining to Lucas' interview in question from people who actually grew up in Soviet Russia during the 1980s who would highly disagree with you there.


What I can gather from this bit of incoherent rambling is that you are opposed to teachers actually teaching. I will go ahead and address one bit, namely on the Theory of Evolution. This is a Scientific Theory, like the Theory of Gravity.


No, I'm against teachers pushing agendas within the classroom. Teaching is telling kids that two plus two equals four. This is more like two plus two must equal something other than four, because to say it is is sexist/racist/homophobic/what have you. I even had a teacher named Heather Lucas who claimed, literally, that women couldn't get an education at all until the 1960s as if it were fact, despite having absolutely no bearing on the topic at hand (World History up to the 1500s), and being flat out wrong (My grandma actually WORKED as an IBM person during World War II while my grandpa was out fighting the Nazis).


One last time to explain how it works. When a person seeks to avoid taxes, the motive for doing so is to hang on to their money. I can honestly say I cannot think of another motive. Lucas went and donated all of the money from the sale to charity. He didn't slip a twenty dollar bill onto a collection plate, he gave all of the money from the sale to charity, which means, he had no money in his pocket as a result of the sale. However, one only gets tax deductions from so much income, so on top of that zero sum amount, he paid extra taxes, which means he lost money from the full deal. He is also looking to start up a new enterprise, which may very well end up being taxed under these rules. And as a private citizen, he has the right to do as he pleases.


Yes, but liberals often decried people who tried to flee the country due to taxes being too high, and Lucas ended up doing something similar, despite claiming he was for Occupy Wall Street. Had I been in his situation and I wanted Obama to raise taxes, I'd let MYSELF be victimized by the increased taxes and make absolutely NO attempt to get myself out of the mess, because I helped make the mess, so I might as well suffer the consequences.

Re: The prequels were better


No, the system you described is nothing like the Soviet system. The Soviet system tries to scrub the film of any element that would be potentially subversive against the Communist agenda.


The actual evidence, namely the existence of the films themselves, indicates otherwise.


No, I'm against teachers pushing agendas within the classroom. Teaching is telling kids that two plus two equals four.


The problem here is that you cannot comprehend the concept that two plus two equals four.


Yes, but liberals often decried people who tried to flee the country due to taxes being too high, and Lucas ended up doing something similar, despite claiming he was for Occupy Wall Street.


Lucas's actions weren't similar. He did not hoard the money, instead he donated it and gave up considerably more than if he had kept the company and paid the taxes. You're just looking for something to complain about.

Time to make up a new signature.

Re: The prequels were better


The actual evidence, namely the existence of the films themselves, indicates otherwise.


And the actual evidence, given by the Russian people themselves, if anything PROVES my point.


The problem here is that you cannot comprehend the concept that two plus two equals four.


No, if anything, two plus two equals four is easy. You have two. You add another two, you get four. One, then two, then three, and finally four. See? I get it. That's if anything child's play.


Lucas's actions weren't similar. He did not hoard the money, instead he donated it and gave up considerably more than if he had kept the company and paid the taxes. You're just looking for something to complain about.


No, he did do something similar, because he actually DID do exactly the opposite of what he said he supported by trying to avoid a tax hike. Had it been me in his position, and I wanted a tax hike, I'd make SURE I suffered the consequences. You know the old saying, you made the bed, now lie in it.

Re: The prequels were better


And the actual evidence, given by the Russian people themselves, if anything PROVES my point.


You haven't demonstrated that you have fully studied Russian culture or how they lived.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3ugndi/was_there_a_blackmarket_for_us_made_movies_in_the/

As a world power, they even beat us into space.


No, if anything, two plus two equals four is easy. You have two. You add another two, you get four. One, then two, then three, and finally four. See? I get it. That's if anything child's play.



You haven't learned to expand that bit of simple logic into the larger world.

For example:

Hypothesis: George Lucas sold his company as a way to dodge taxes.

Q. Why do people try to avoid paying taxes?

A. To keep more of their money.

Q. Did George Lucas keep the money from the sale?

A. No. He donated all of it.

Therefore: Lucas did not sell the company for money.

Final conclusion: Lucas did not sell the company as a tax dodge.

Or, to put it another way:

2(Lucas sells his company) + 2(Lucas donates all money from the sale) = 4(Lucas didn't do it for the money.)

That's called "logic."


No, he did do something similar, because he actually DID do exactly the opposite of what he said he supported by trying to avoid a tax hike. Had it been me in his position, and I wanted a tax hike, I'd make SURE I suffered the consequences.


All other information, such as whether or not he supported the tax increase is irrelevant because it runs counter to the motive of why people try to avoid paying taxes (keeping more of their money).


Time to make up a new signature.

Re: The prequels were better


You haven't demonstrated that you have fully studied Russian culture or how they lived.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3ugndi/was_there_a_blackmarket_for_us_made_movies_in_the/

As a world power, they even beat us into space.


Fine, I'll give you proof:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtujD-AdQGo

In particular, look up Cyber Kartoshka (who, BTW, made clear (s)he grew up during that time when explaining how he knows this). There's also Son of Empire.

Also, this bit:

http://rbth.com/arts/2014/10/19/artists_under_pressure_soviet_filmmakers_and_censorship_40723.html


You haven't learned to expand that bit of simple logic into the larger world.

For example:

Hypothesis: George Lucas sold his company as a way to dodge taxes.

Q. Why do people try to avoid paying taxes?

A. To keep more of their money.

Q. Did George Lucas keep the money from the sale?

A. No. He donated all of it.

Therefore: Lucas did not sell the company for money.

Final conclusion: Lucas did not sell the company as a tax dodge.

Or, to put it another way:

2(Lucas sells his company) + 2(Lucas donates all money from the sale) = 4(Lucas didn't do it for the money.)

That's called "logic."


Actually, I HAVE used that kind of logic. That's how I deduced the Rebels were likely to be Communists as soon as I learned they were based on the Vietcong.

Also, some people avoid paying taxes because they think they tax too much, rather than keeping money. Heck, Robin Hood avoided paying taxes, yet he gave money to the downtrodden.

If anything, you're the one who's being illogical.


All other information, such as whether or not he supported the tax increase is irrelevant because it runs counter to the motive of why people try to avoid paying taxes (keeping more of their money).


Not really. Some people just avoid paying taxes if they know their money is going to an ill cause, like when people are forced to pay tax money to fund abortions. That's what I would do if I avoided taxes ever since Roe v. Wade came along.

Re: The prequels were better


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtujD-AdQGo

In particular, look up Cyber Kartoshka (who, BTW, made clear (s)he grew up during that time when explaining how he knows this). There's also Son of Empire.

Also, this bit:

http://rbth.com/arts/2014/10/19/artists_under_pressure_soviet_filmmakers_and_censorship_40723.html



Top link doesn't offer any proof, just one person's opinion. Others presented no results.

Again, my links worked and presented actual evidence and data.


Actually, I HAVE used that kind of logic. That's how I deduced the Rebels were likely to be Communists as soon as I learned they were based on the Vietcong.



Except only the Ewoks were inspired by the Vietcong (and loosely at that). Lucas was inspired by the Nixon administration to explore how a democracy might be corrupted into a dictatorship. Nixon was the starting point, but it expanded to become much broader. The rebels, under this scenario, would have more in common with the counter cultural protesters. Lucas of course took that and expanded it to include Nazi Germany, the change of the Roman Republic to the Roman Empire, and others.

http://www.history.com/news/the-real-history-that-inspired-star-wars

In other words, your logic is flawed as it fails when presented with facts.


Not really. Some people just avoid paying taxes if they know their money is going to an ill cause, like when people are forced to pay tax money to fund abortions.


Tax dollars aren't directly or specifically earmarked in such a fashion. And as I clearly demonstrated, Lucas's motives weren't financial. In other words, as private citizens, we are not able to specify how our tax dollars are spent, whether it goes to infrastructure maintenance, or to fund a war declared under false pretenses.

Also, you should really learn to be more introspective and to ask real questions, such as why a woman would want/need to have an abortion. And if you want to discourage abortion, you should make certain that all schools provide comprehensive sex education, and that birth control is made readily available.

Time to make up a new signature.

Re: The prequels were better


Top link doesn't offer any proof, just one person's opinion. Others presented no results.

Again, my links worked and presented actual evidence and data.


I'd consider a person who actually GREW UP in the USSR to be a LOT more valid than someone who didn't even set foot in the USSR nor was even raised by people who had experience with the USSR. In fact, I'm pretty sure most people would take his claims as being valid.

As far as the second link, that talked about how Tarkovsky's films were outright censored in the USSR.


Except only the Ewoks were inspired by the Vietcong (and loosely at that). Lucas was inspired by the Nixon administration to explore how a democracy might be corrupted into a dictatorship. Nixon was the starting point, but it expanded to become much broader. The rebels, under this scenario, would have more in common with the counter cultural protesters. Lucas of course took that and expanded it to include Nazi Germany, the change of the Roman Republic to the Roman Empire, and others.

http://www.history.com/news/the-real-history-that-inspired-star-wars

In other words, your logic is flawed as it fails when presented with facts.


No, Lucas himself made clear that the Rebel Alliance ITSELF was based on the Vietcong, not JUST the Ewoks. Or do I have to remind you of how his pitch for the storyline of The Star Wars made explicit that he considered the North Vietnamese Army/Viet Cong to be a small band of freedom fighters? And considering the date, 1973, that makes it pretty clear that this was WELL before the Ewoks were even an idea in his head.

My logic is NOT flawed. Even Chris Taylor and Walter Murch made this much explicit in various sources, including The Conversations as well as How Star Wars Conquered the Universe. If he said that the first Star Wars movie was meant to push the Vietcong ideology, and that he specifically had to change some settings of the film such as where and when it took place specifically to avoid directly tying it to the Vietnam War to avoid the fallout that would inevitably ensue, logically, that means he's trying to push that the Vietcong are our superiors.


Tax dollars aren't directly or specifically earmarked in such a fashion. And as I clearly demonstrated, Lucas's motives weren't financial. In other words, as private citizens, we are not able to specify how our tax dollars are spent, whether it goes to infrastructure maintenance, or to fund a war declared under false pretenses.

Also, you should really learn to be more introspective and to ask real questions, such as why a woman would want/need to have an abortion. And if you want to discourage abortion, you should make certain that all schools provide comprehensive sex education, and that birth control is made readily available.


Tell that to Barack "I won't let my daughters be punished by a baby" Obama, who made VERY clear he intends to have our tax dollars be funded to Planned Parenthood. And in fact, he just did attempt to do just that recently: http://americanlibertypac.com/2016/12/last-minute-obama-order-forces-states-tax-fund-planned-parenthood/

And sex education won't stop abortion at all. If anything, that would make it even MORE likely for people to want abortion. You want a real way to stop abortion? Shut down Planned Parenthood, and take down Roe v. Wade. Heck, a leaked video actually had a Planned Parenthood representative actually giving advice on various sex elements like bondage.

Re: The prequels were better


I'd consider a person who actually GREW UP in the USSR to be a LOT more valid than someone who didn't even set foot in the USSR nor was even raised by people who had experience with the USSR. In fact, I'm pretty sure most people would take his claims as being valid.


Many of the links I provided were written by people who lived in the Soviet Union.


As far as the second link, that talked about how Tarkovsky's films were outright censored in the USSR.



As it didn't function, there is no way to confirm or deny the veracity of those statements. But considering the overall conspiracy theory quality of your links and philosophy, I feel reasonably safe in being able to dismiss it as "fake news."


No, Lucas himself made clear that the Rebel Alliance ITSELF was based on the Vietcong, not JUST the Ewoks. Or do I have to remind you of how his pitch for the storyline of The Star Wars made explicit that he considered the North Vietnamese Army/Viet Cong to be a small band of freedom fighters? And considering the date, 1973, that makes it pretty clear that this was WELL before the Ewoks were even an idea in his head.


You have very poor reading comprehension. I have provided the full links. And while Ewoks were not present in early scripts of Star Wars, Wookies were. Something similar to Return of the Jedi was described in early script versions of Star Wars, and those battles involved wookies. https://www.amazon.com/Star-Wars-Screenplays-Laurent-Bouzereau/dp/0345409817/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1481935500&sr=8-1&keywords=the+annotated+star+wars
https://www.amazon.com/Star-Wars-JW-Rinzler/dp/1616554258/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1481935534&sr=1-1&keywords=the+star+wars


And sex education won't stop abortion at all. If anything, that would make it even MORE likely for people to want abortion. You want a real way to stop abortion? Shut down Planned Parenthood, and take down Roe v. Wade.


All that will do is send abortions to back alleys and coat hangers. Not a pleasant thought. Planned Parenthood mostly provides health services and contraceptives. Very little of those services involve abortions, and those are not funded by tax dollars.

In contrast, here's this: http://observer.com/2014/02/new-york-city-abortion-rates-drop-to-lowest-point-ever/

http://www.siecus.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Feature.showFeature&featureID=1041

http://www.attn.com/stories/7020/sex-education-europe-compared-to-united-states




Time to make up a new signature.

Re: The prequels were better


Many of the links I provided were written by people who lived in the Soviet Union.


No, a lot of the links were from stuff like the NYTimes or liberal rags, most of whom, if they did live in the USSR, fell for Disinformation, assuming of course they weren't deliberately lying to the West.


As it didn't function, there is no way to confirm or deny the veracity of those statements. But considering the overall conspiracy theory quality of your links and philosophy, I feel reasonably safe in being able to dismiss it as "fake news."


Actually, that link is working. I'd know because I was able to access it just fine. Heck, I even managed to read it myself. Maybe your internet connection is the problem.


You have very poor reading comprehension. I have provided the full links. And while Ewoks were not present in early scripts of Star Wars, Wookies were. Something similar to Return of the Jedi was described in early script versions of Star Wars, and those battles involved wookies. https://www.amazon.com/Star-Wars-Screenplays-Laurent-Bouzereau/dp/0345409817/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1481935500&sr=8-1&keywords=the+annotated+star+wars
https://www.amazon.com/Star-Wars-JW-Rinzler/dp/1616554258/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1481935534&sr=1-1&keywords=the+star+wars


My school actually saw that, if anything, I had advanced reading comprehension. In fact, so advanced, that after it became apparent that I wasn't remedial as they had originally believed, they started pointing fingers.

And I have in fact read up on various sources, including Chris Taylor's How Star Wars Conquered the Universe, and that made it VERY clear that they were pushing Vietcong propaganda even back then. I'll even post the page numbers proving it:

50, 87-88, 109, 110, 125, 163, 201, 236, 281

And here's some portions from the same book that dealt with Lucas' involvement in the film Apocalypse Now, and how it related to Star Wars: 88, 124-125, 242, 273, 281.

And for The Conversations, Walter Murch had this to say:


"Originally George Lucas was going to direct ('Apocalypse Now'), so it was a project that George and John [Milius] developed for [American] Zoetrope. That was back in 1969. Then when Warner Brothers cancelled the funding for Zoetrope, the project was abandoned for a while. After the success of 'American Graffiti' in 1973, George wanted to revive it, but it was still too hot a topic, the [Vietnam] war was still on, and nobody wanted to finance something like that. So George considered his options: What did he really want to say in 'Apocalypse Now?' The message boiled down to the ability of a small group of people to defeat a gigantic power simply by the force of their convictions. And he decided, All right, if it's politically too hot as a contemporary subject, I'll put the essence of the story in outer space and make it happen in a galaxy long ago and far away. The rebel group were the North Vietnamese, and the Empire was the United States. And if you have 'the force,' no matter how small you are, you can defeat the overwhelmingly big power. 'Star Wars' is George's transubstantiated version of 'Apocalypse Now.'"


And note his words, he said it IS George Lucas's transubstantiated version, not that it was that, but grew into something more. That means the intent was very much still there, even in the final version of the film.


All that will do is send abortions to back alleys and coat hangers. Not a pleasant thought. Planned Parenthood mostly provides health services and contraceptives. Very little of those services involve abortions, and those are not funded by tax dollars.

In contrast, here's this: http://observer.com/2014/02/new-york-city-abortion-rates-drop-to-lowest-point-ever/

http://www.siecus.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Feature.showFeature&featureID=1041

http://www.attn.com/stories/7020/sex-education-europe-compared-to-united-states


Actually, the back alley abortions bit was false numbers generated by a guy who wanted to scare people into legalizing Roe v. Wade, something even the guy who made that number up in the first place eventually admitted. Not to mention Planned Parenthood's services all are directly tied to Abortions. Don't believe me? Read these sources:

http://liveactionnews.org/the-truth-behind-planned-parenthoods-abortion-marketshare

http://liveactionnews.org/new-video-debunks-planned-parenthoods-3-percent-abortion-myth

http://liveactionnews.org/planned-parenthood-commits-one-abortion-every-97-seconds


Re: The prequels were better


No, a lot of the links were from stuff like the NYTimes or liberal rags


You really didn't bother with any of them, did you? And as I have pointed out, and is becoming increasingly obvious, liberals tend to exist more in the real world.

Beyond that:

https://filmschoolrejects.com/great-russian-movies-for-people-who-dont-think-they-like-russian-movies-238fb970334f#.57xtz7hpw

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3ugndi/was_there_a_blackmarket_for_us_made_movies_in_the/

Both of these links involve people who actually lived in the USSR.

The New York Times would send reporters to the USSR and had correspondents based in the USSR.


Actually, that link is working. I'd know because I was able to access it just fine. Heck, I even managed to read it myself.


When I click on it, it takes me to a website called "Russia Beyond the Headlines" with a 404 page not found message.


My school actually saw that, if anything, I had advanced reading comprehension.


Of course they did.

Liveactionnews. No Right Wing agenda there. It's completely factual and accurate. It's not like they're known for doctoring their videos or providing inaccurate information.

Oh, wait, they are.


Time to make up a new signature.

Re: The prequels were better

dude I cannot believe your patience. I read that entire thread you had with that bozo. jesus. thank you for taking the time to explain yourself. I enjoyed that conversation quite a bit.

Re: The prequels were better



Time to make up a new signature.

Re: The prequels were better

Nothing is original. Get over yourself. There are worse things that a film can be guilty of. Poor direction, pacing, dialogue, effects sequences, etc are things that would put me off a movie.

Re: The prequels were better

But there is a difference between adding depth to the story as well as adding you own unique style to the story and what The Force Awakens was. When someone says 'to be original' they mean to put your own spin on the story. Not rehash Star Wars IV: a New Hope.

Re: The prequels were better

TFA is like a dried up lump of crap: it's inoffensive, it's dry so it doesn't stain and doesn't smell.

The prequels were like explosive diarrhea: an incontrollable mess of feces that splatter everywhere and ruins anything near it.

Re: The prequels were better

I didn't think the FX were amazing.

The X-wing fights and the Millennium Falcon scenes looked like $hit. Like something out of JJ's Star Trek. The idiot hired the same FX supervisor. Rogue One looks SO much better in terms of spaceship FX.

The Shroud of the Disney has fallen. Begun the Jar Jar Abrahams Wars have.

Re: The prequels were better

They definitely lack believable dialog at times, and Jar Jar is hard to swallow, as is Loyds acting...but the overall arch, and seeing the Jedi temple was interesting. It also felt more consistent in style with what George already showed us in the OT, and gave some exposition to canonical items we'd just made assumptions about. Definitely not the pander fest that TFA was.

Re: The prequels were better

Everyone is entitled to their opinions. IMO, the prequels, on many levels (such as the likability of the characters), were worse than in TFA. I enjoyed watching Rey and Finn much more than Jar Jar, Anakin (at various ages), etc.

With that said, I feel that Disney tends to suck the life out of movies...so, there's that (with TFA).

--
If vampires hate "plus signs" - imagine how they feel about the "square root" symbol.

Re: The prequels were better

I turned it off after 5 min - swear to god...just wasn't into it.
Top