Originally posted by 歐石南 at 2005-6-6 12:37 AM:
jedi都好屈姐
死左仲可以溝通:o
sith仲屈,死左幾千年都可以返生
Originally posted by joekjen at 2005-6-6 12:35:
sith仲屈,死左幾千年都可以返生
佢無返生
係d人自己fallen之麻:o
Originally posted by joekjen at 6-6-2005 12:35 PM:
sith仲屈,死左幾千年都可以返生
咪膠啦,唔係死左千年呀,只係jedi以為佢地被滅族,而sith一直以一師一徒的方式流傳下去
Originally posted by 灰袍聖徒 at 2005-6-6 18:55:
咪膠啦,唔係死左千年呀,只係jedi以為佢地被滅族,而sith一直以一師一徒的方式流傳下去
冷靜d:icon081:
Originally posted by 歐石南 at 6-6-2005 07:26 PM:
冷靜d:icon081:
呢個topic笑爆左我個咀:icon071:
Originally posted by 灰袍聖徒 at 2005-6-6 06:55 PM:
咪膠啦,唔係死左千年呀,只係jedi以為佢地被滅族,而sith一直以一師一徒的方式流傳下去
佢係唔係指d spirit 呀
好似係 expanded universe 個到 yavin 4 既Exar Kun
Originally posted by 灰袍聖徒 at 2005-6-6 08:25 AM:
你們班友:icon071:
其實呢個topic都令到某D美國沙鍋粉絲頗不快。:icon101:
Anakin's fans strike back
May 1, 2005
Q: I've been revisiting the original "Star Wars" trilogy in preparation for "Episode III." I was shocked to see at the end of "Return of the Jedi" the ethereal image of the older Anakin Skywalker replaced by Hayden Christensen's younger version. The change didn't make any sense, any more than if George Lucas had replaced Sir Alec Guinness with Ewan McGregor. I didn't mind all the other little tweaks, but this left me feeling cheated. More than that, don't you think it's disrespectful to Sebastian Shaw?
Jimmy Jacobs, Columbia, S.C.
A: I turn to a modern Jedi Master, Sun-Times tech columnist Andy Ihnatko, who replies:
"Well, if it's disrespectful to Sebastian Shaw -- who played the role for exactly one scene in the entire double-trilogy -- then it must be n-times more disrespectful to David Prowse and James Earl Jones, who portrayed Vader's body and soul in every other scene of the Middle Trilogy, except for that one. I think it's actually a little poetic that Anakin goes off to Jedi Valhalla in the form he had before he Turned.
"I encourage the questioner to transfer his outrage to places where Lucas' revisionism merits no lesser reaction. Mr. Lucas, I'm sorry, but look: Apparently, I know more about these characters than you do because I know you got it right the first time. Han Solo didn't shoot Greedo after being fired upon. He knew he was about to be hauled back to Jabba the Hutt and certain death, so he just shot him while the idiot was talking (see Tuco's advice in 'The Good, the Bad and the Ugly'). Boba Fett isn't just some flunky in the service of a crimelord on a dirtwater planet. He got involved in the Solo affair for the reward, he hung around for a while afterward because hey, cool, there were dancing girls and free drinks on the sand barge, and if he hadn't gotten eaten by the Sarlacc, he'd have been outta there, kicking the sand off his boots and pursuing his next bounty somewhere in the next star system."
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=ANSWERMAN&date=20050501
May 15, 2005
Q. A recent question about George Lucas' revisions on the "Star Wars" DVDs has me wondering: What would Andrew Sarris say? Lucas' constant tinkering (or tampering) with the original trilogy prompts some interesting questions about the auteur theory; can an auteur be faulted for violating his own work?
If a director claims authorship of a film as stridently as Lucas has, why shouldn't he be allowed to refine it? I don't mean to champion Lucas' changes to Episodes IV-VI, some of which I find harmless and others distracting, but I see in his continuing changes an exciting example of the auteur theory being put to the test. How much of the film can Lucas still claim as his own after the original release? Many fans scorn his updated versions as travesties, and although I sympathize, I think they tread a fine line.
Michael McGinnis, Warren, Mich.
A. I forwarded your question to Andrew Sarris of the New York Observer, who is America's foremost advocate of the auteur theory. He replies: "I have not yet seen the latest 'Star Wars,' but I doubt that it will shake the auteurist credit George Lucas deserves for the entire series. The idea that an auteur can be disqualified by the changes that are made in his work, whatever that means, strikes me as bizarre. My own feeling -- and this I have felt from the beginning of the 'Star Wars' series -- is that the genre itself leaves something to be desired. I have never been taken with Mr. Lucas' later conceits, but I did have a favorable reaction to 'American Graffiti.' I simply haven't thought about the 'Star Wars' phenomenon for a long time. It's a fact of life and business, and I don't see any point in arguing with the man who's made billions in the industry. I just find so many more things in the cinema more interesting."
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=ANSWERMAN&date=20050515
Originally posted by 灰袍聖徒 at 2005-6-6 06:55 PM:
咪膠啦,唔係死左千年呀,只係jedi以為佢地被滅族,而sith一直以一師一徒的方式流傳下去
Marka Ragnos就差d成功復活啦,比Kyle Katarn阻止左之ma
Originally posted by 灰袍聖徒 at 2005-6-6 08:09 PM:
呢個topic笑爆左我個咀:icon071:
邊o度好笑:o
Originally posted by 橙色力量 at 2005-6-6 08:25 PM:
其實呢個topic都令到某D美國沙鍋粉絲頗不快。:icon101:
Anakin's fans strike back
May 1, 2005
Q: I've been revisiting the original "Star Wars" trilogy in preparation for "Ep ...
太多英文了:o