SOCL

Oh, I see. Still, that would explain why some my older fan friends had never noticed that particular scene until the Special Editions (and some not until the DVD release! ). What other scenes were re-added? If you know, I'm interested. Blame it on the history thing in me.

http://i7.ebayimg.com/02/s/07/9a/20/69_2.JPG I have this box set as well. It was the first THX edition of the Star Wars Trilogy released in mid-90's. It has several scenes from the theatrical release that were previously axed from prior VHS releases (ex. The asteriod smashing the bridge of the ISD in ESB). I didn't realize there were additional scenes that weren't included in the theatrical version. This certainly doesn't mean it's a Special Edition form, does it? I always wondered why some of the older fans I knew seemed amazed by the asteroid taking out the bridge of the Star Destroyer and the disappearing hologram of that ship's captain. Nothing new to me since I started watching that particular edition. What else?

I agree that the media should move off the campus immediately and that the multimedia package provided by Cho should have gotten less distribution than it did. I do think however, the American media should remain vigilant on reporting real news and not Anna Nicole Smith and the fight over baby's daddies or spending six months talking about one stupid bitch who got drunk and hung out with the wrong crowd down in Aruba. I happen to agree with you on this, too. Anna Nicole Smith's baby and all the nonsense that surrounded it, including the biological father coming out and saying "I told you so!" as though he'd won a contest, was sickening. Oh, and of interest, my father is among a group of officers petitioning the garrison commander at Fort Belvoir to have regulations changed so that every death of a soldier brings the flag to half-staff. This will certainly mean being at half-staff the majority of the time, but I think we owe it. Any thoughts?

Well, thanks to "Slick Willy" (former President Clinton) the armed forces are a shadow of the former self. Good ol' Ronny Reagan, built up a 600 ship US Navy to keep us (and the free world) safe. Those were the days ... But, it's nice to know we're appreciated every once in awhile. Enjoy your freedoms J! And you too world! I know I do The question is, are 600 ships actually necessary? Most strategy thinkers seem to think not. It's a matter of flexing muscle. Pound for pound, no country in the world can stand against the United States Navy in a conventional war. I can remember reading an article about three years ago which stated that the United States could take on the rest of the world's navies combined and easily come out victorious. What's the point, then, of having 600 ships when 232 will more than do?

You think too cynically, Rob. He clearly did it to accomplish is "definitive" vision of Star Wars...despite going back and changing it to his "(ultra) definitive" vision a few years later. Next time around, Yoda's going to be replaced by Jar-Jar. Wait and see!

The DVD set that came out a little while ago. Ask SOCL. Man, I gotta get outta this thread for a bit. Reference my previous post.

It seems that the box set I was referring to was the final uneditied form of the original trilogy to be pressed on VHS. It was done in 1995, so it seems very likely that the set you have, D, would have been on sale until then. After that, they came out with the Special Edition box set form with the gold fullscreen box and a silver widescreen box. Then the final iteration before the DVD release was this one, which was released in 2002 before AOTC. Then we have the DVD version...no need to go into that, eh? Actually, that didn't happen until the DVD mutation of the Special Editions in 2004.

Oh, my. I've never seen that boxset before. Much nicer than the one that followed it.

Check out the link I posted at the beginning of this thread. It's a picture of that boxset, the final VHS set before the Special Editions.

Rob, you may get your wish. Supposedly the movies are all going to be re-released in theaters this summer for the 30th Anniversary, and in 3-D. It's a long-running rumor, but as the date gets closer, the less we hear about it... Then again, it won't be the original since it'll probably be the DVD version nonsense. I just hate the fact that we know that Vader knows about Luke being his son. Sure, we know it's coming, but it's still so much better without Lucas spoon-feeding it to us! I don't need to hear the Emperor tell Vader, say "Search your feelings" and then Vader say "How can this be?" AH!! It makes me want to scream!!

Haven't heard this before, but I must admit, those Jedi from the prequels did seem to move faster than in the original trilogy. Then again, they weren't human, they were CGI. I just ignore them and ignore the differences. Look at Ben aboard the Death Star. Some Jedi master he was with his little spin. I'll just pretend that it's all been dumbed-down for us since it was so fast and so amazing, we couldn't even comprehend the very thought of the fight.

I won't say that anytime following 1977 can ever compare to anything following, but for those of us too young for that era, the pre-97 era I think was a time of reinvigoration of Star Wars, bringing in a generation of fresh blood. Personally, I loved the Special Editions at the time of their release, but it established a dangerous precedent which gave us the rubbish on the DVDs. So then LucasFilm turns around and tries to re-release the original trilogy, unedited, on DVD...which apparently turned out badly since the quality doesn't even come close to the quality of that last, unaltered VHS version. Pity, really. I'm going to go out and buy myself some device to convert my unaltered VHS's to DVD.

I believe that this is a very relevant moment to show everyone .

budious, I don't disagree with you in that latter regard. Had it been any other country's military, they would have been routed some time back, which shows the resilience of the U.S. Armed Forces to continue pursuing their commander in chief's plan, despite the fact said plan is a failure. I'm not sure, though, I'd say that if the U.S. Armed Forces couldn't pacify, no one could. The British troops in the south of Iraq have actually succeeded quite well, and I would personally attribute this to years of experience in empire and lessons learned in past wars. Occupation and insurgency are two things the British have dealt with in the past, but the U.S. has not. Despite all this, I can't say I believe we need firearms in the U.S. in case of an invasion of any sort. Despite what some of the hawkish fear-mongers in DC might say or imply, militarily speaking, there simply is not a single military force anywhere in the world that has either the manpower, resources, or ability to launch an all-out invasion of U.S. territory here at home. This isn't like the old days. Heck, even during World War II, no country had any hope of ever invading and succeeding in the USA! The simple fact is that if they try ground invasion, we'll be able to bomb them to nothing. If they try transport by air, we'll cruise-missile and otherwise anti-air them to nothing. And if they try by sea, we'll bomb and cruse-missile them to the bottom of the ocean. It simply cannot happen. In a conventional war against a conventional enemy, the U.S. will win. It's what we're best at.

And don't get us started on the DVD versions! Hayden Christensen is NOT old Anakin Skywalker!!!

I think this is something we agree on, budious. I believe servicepersonnel should be paid more, much more, and I'm not just saying that because I'll soon be one of them. The fact of the matter is that the average soldier or even officer doesn't make enough serving his or her country to support themselves, much less a family! In exchange, the military gives them "benefits" which are supposed to make up for it: tax-free, very low-priced shopping; free housing; etc. Now, with the Pentagon's privatization of nearly all non-combat functions, it actually costs more to provide benefits via contracts to military personnel than it would cutting out all the benefits and using a fraction of those funds to raise the standard of living across all ranks and services. It's ridiculous, but the military-contract lobby in the USA is a very powerful voice on Capitol Hill and pushes much of the policy-making in domestic military affairs. With the advent of private military contractors (better and more rightfully known as "mercenaries") such as BlackwaterUSA, DynCorp, and Halliburton (KBR), military contractors are beginning to push foreign and operational policy. Remember that Iraqi city of Fallujah that U.S. Marines pounded to dust in November 2004? Know why? Four Blackwater employees (mercenaries) were sent to pick up kitchen supplies against the advice and orders of U.S. Marines controlling occupation of what was otherwise a relatively peaceful and sleepy city in Iraq (compared to other cities). Those four contractors got themselves killed and in a fit of anger, the Administration ordered that an assault be made against the city in order to bring the murderers of these men to justice. Before I get to the consequences, I think I should point out that unlike service-personnel, these contractors answer to no one except their bosses (no UCMJ, no international law, nothing) and yet expect the same immunities given to the military for deaths and wounded, which means they wouldn't have to compensate family for the deaths of their employees. They also have a choice of which contract to undertake and where to go--these fellows made the choice to guard the transport of kitchenware through Fallujah against the advice of the U.S. Marine commander in the area. Well, Marines attack and many of them die. Not sure why since the insurgency hadn't really started and Fallujah by comparison was a pretty calm place. Following that, the insurgency worsened as it was seen by many in the area as a U.S. led persecution of warrant defenses against mercenaries. Further, the people of Fallujah and then the rest of Iraq didn't see a reason for the U.S. military to get involved in a matter that hadn't involved them until they'd made it such. This all happened against the better advice of the "commanders on the ground", of which the President is so fond of saying he listens to. Before the battle in November of 2004, enemy strength was estimated at 20,000 dispersed and unorganized fighters, mostly Saddam/Ba'athist loyalists. In January of the following year, only three months later, the number had risen to 200,000 of which most were nationalist locals who had no ties to Saddam Hussein or his regime. Lastly, the people who killed the Blackwater fellows were never and have never been captured, and now we have a bloody growing insurgency and civil war to deal with. It's the subject of much research and I know of at least two students at my university whose master research covers the root of the insurgency, both concentrating on Fallujah as what fanned the ashes of civil unrest to the fires of what we have now... This isn't to say military contractors don't have a role to play, but when there is one contractor for every 3 service-personnel on the ground serving in increasingly combat-style actions, I get concerned. These are people who answer to know one and can be prosecuted by no one, so they kill whoever they want, wherever they want, however they want--just as long as they get paid. It was like this five years ago, it wasn't like this ten years ago. I do not believe in outsourcing combat jobs to private companies and I do not believe it should be done at all. Hiring people to conduct security around military bases or run the local shop--I can live with that, but hiring infantrymen to serve alongside military personnel as equals, but without a bit of regulation and for much more money that those who sacrifice to service really pisses me off.

I think most, if not all of us can agree that if George Lucas had taken a role like that he had in Empire and Jedi during the prequels, the movies would have turned out at least 100.1% better than they did. Then again, the plots were rather weak and revolved too much around the activities of politics and politicians rather than the characters themselves. Institutions dominated the first two prequels and one in particular came to dominate the third one! (can you guess which?) The Simpsons did an episode on just how bad Episode I was, commenting on the plot, lack of acting, lack of plot, and the overuse of CGI. They have an especially funny scene wherein the Senate has roll call that lasts something like an hour with no action, and then later Groening presents Lucas writing the script for the next movie with a bit of a dialogue between characters about a bounced check! They weren't too off the mark with any of that! I always imagined Anakin as a failed Jedi Luke, the antithesis of what we saw in Return of the Jedi. I also imagined someone with a much more complex background, namely because it was shrouded in complete mystery as it wasn't bloody relevant! Not of the immaculate midichlorian conception! And Yoda didn't fight with a lightsaber...neither did Palpatine. Anakin was older, much older, and aged at the same rate everyone else did, not faster (and Obi-Wan didn't age drastically in three short years). I also imagined the first movie taking place towards the end of an aging Clone Wars in progress, with the Republic at last on the verge of defeating victory. This way the Clone Wars remain mostly a mystery (giving much more room for imagination) and developing the reasons for the Republic's conversion to the Empire. I can only hope that in Heaven, among the Thursday night taco bar and the Sunday ice cream parties for the best kickball team, there will be screenings of Star Wars: What it SHOULD Have Been.

Yes, 97 to 99 were exciting times! Damn nearly competed for my personal slot, and yet... I don't know. George didn't have to live up to anything, in my view--he could have just left it alone, a disappointing mystery rather than a disappointing...disappointment.

I was here, looking for my pop to see if any familiar names came up among the recent casualties (none, luckily!) and noticed the difference in casualty rate between US and UK servicemembers. Must say, I envy my brothers on the other side of the pond. There are months here where no one dies at all, whereas we've had 76 deaths this month alone... Granted, there are more US forces in Iraq--now especially, under this "Surge" strategy--than British forces, but still... It's always quite depressing to hear of just one death. Would be nice to hear of no deaths, for once.

I started listening to me The Empire Strikes Back soundtrack and part of one of the songs got me thinking of 1997, when the Special Editions were released. Since I'm a shy too young to remember when the originals came out in theaters, I'd have to say that among my best memories of anything and perhaps all things Star Wars come from 1997. So figured, why don't we all share some our most fond memories of anything Star Wars related. It can be something quite specific, or can just be an overall feeling of a time or even a span of a few years! I suppose I do this also due to a lack of Star Wars-related conversation on these boards. Oh, and a fun little poll to go along with it. So I suppose I should share my own opinion, eh? I did start it, after all... Well, as mentioned, I don't actually remember the original trilogy's releasing seeing as I was too busy being not-conceived, so for me it would have to be the years 1995 to 1997 when the Special Editions were released, and then 1997 to 1999 when the long-awaited, though terribly disappointing The Phantom Menace debuted. In 1995, my parents purchased for me the entire trilogy on VHS, the old ones, mind you, which mostly the older fans (relative) will remember. They looked like this. That was my first real introduction to Star Wars. Sure, I'd known about Star Wars, though didn't fully understand it, before then when I'd sit up late watching old movies on the tele with my dad. I remember the first one I'd seen was Return of the Jedi where I'd learned one of my parents' first dates was to see that, to my mother's horror and dismay. I also thought it odd that the second Death Star and Vader's head looked alike... That same year I made friends with a fellow named Matt who was a HUGE Star Wars fan, and he was the one who really got me into it, all out. He collected the Hasbro toys, had t-shirts, watched the movies, and read the "novels", albeit the junior ones--but I thought all of that was so awesome. We would walk to the local store on the military base and make a big fuss whenever one of us had enough money to buy another toy. I still distinctly remember when he called me up and had something scratching at the phone, which to my amazement was the action figure of Bossk, that lizard bounty hunter! I immediately went out and spent a week's allowance on the $5.99 figure. I can also remember at times going into insane "mind-fits" because I desperately wanted some of the micromachines, but hadn't the money for both figures and micromachines...so figures won out. In 1996, I got my first Star Wars book: The Complete Guide to Vehicles and Vessels. An absolutely fantastic book I still have and covet as though it were some deity--much higher quality than the new one! I also recall how in the run-up to the Special Editions, Star Wars began to become popular in all circles of society, and yet how I was among the actually "cool" kids who was a fan before that! Ha! 1997 was the year to beat all years--I have only good memories of that year! Despite the fact I did not, to my own surprise, ever see A New Hope or Return of the Jedi in the theaters, I did see Empire, and that was all that mattered! Boba Fett was, of course, my favorite character, so everything he did I had to imitate. At the same time, my other great childhood love was fed when the sequel to Jurassic Park came out, The Lost World, which forced me into deciding between Star Wars toys or the new line of dinosaurs and human figurines. It was no competition, and some of you may be appalled to learn that I chose The Lost World. It was simply a matter of my love for my, by then, extensive JP toy collection versus my tiny (comparatively) collection of Star Wars toys. Luckily, my friend Matt was willing to trade my SW figures for his JP figures. Absolutely fantastic! We also can't forget the impression the whole Shadows of the Empires campaign made on everything related to Star Wars then: the Nintendo64 game, the novel (and junior novelization!), the comic books, the toy line... That fed my Star Wars addiction that year probably more than anything else, especially in anticipation that there would be a Shadows of the Empire movie... Damn Lucas for not doing that instead! The thing that makes those years stand out in my mind most is the fact that I was really very much a Star Wars virgin then. Nothing was known and every experience, every moment, every bit was new! Unchartered territory not yet marred by Lucas re-releases (though I've come to prefer the original, original forms...) and the cynicism of knowing too much about the series and franchise as a whole. Back then, there was a sense of mysticism. The Clone Wars were a completely mystery, and all I know about came from a brief allusion in an old Marvel comic book that mentioned Boba Fett having fought in it. I had dreams of armies of Mandalorians invading Old Republic (not Galactic Republic!) systems, locked in combat with armies of Jedi and Republic forces--a titanic struggle that took dozens of years, not just three! Nothing was known then, nothing was revealed then, and Anakin Skywalker was actually a starfighter pilot--not a blond-haired, pod-racing brat who grows up to be a bad actor... It was that feeling of everything is new, everything is possible, of letting my imagination run wild because no one would mar it with stupidity (damn you Lucas!!!)--that is why I loved 1997.

budious, I must say, I am in agreement with Mad and I have had seven years to accustom myself our President's garbled nonsense that somehow passes for speeches. I'm interested to know precisely what Mad is referring to in case we are not thinking of the same thing.

I would hardly characterize a blatant apology as "neutral," but I have to say, I don't really trust blogs very much seeing as their likely to seethe with opinion so typical of the misinformation found these days on the Net. I wouldn't, therefore, invest much trust in what this fellow Drudge wrote, especially since the link has been removed. Not quite reliable, wouldn't we say?

Budious, where did you get this? I am watching CNN at this very moment and Cho's family has issued an apology via Cho's sister. They are praying for the families of the dead and wounded from the massacre last Monday. Where did you get that the family is glad he is dead? Here's a link to the article: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/21/vtech.shooting/index.html

No one is denying that a determined criminal won't get a firearm, nor is anyone denying that lacking firearms, criminals will resort to blades, hammers, and such, rather like a bad version of the game Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. I hear tell on BBC News Hour that in the United Kingdom, youth knife crimes are rather high, but don't you think that if they could get a hold of firearms, firearm crimes wouldn't be on the rise? The fact of the matter is, a knife and hammer are not safe in the hands of a criminal; however, they are safer than wielding a firearm. A firearm has much longer range and more potential to kill en masse than a knife, hammer, or even katana. You have to get close, approach people, to stab and maim them with those sort of weapons, but you do not have to do this with a firearm. Heck, I could sit on top of my roof and pick off those teenagers who walk through the flowers in my backyard with a .30-06 hunting rifle, but I certainly wouldn't be able to running around like a mad man with a katana! I can only target one person at a time with a hand-held swinging and/or cutting weapon, but with a pistol or rifle--bam, bam, bam. I don't have to move my fight, just shift my aim, and I've taken everyone out, and they never had a chance to run. And if they had a gun, they're very unlikely to have a chance to draw and take out the shooter. Fewer or more restrictions on firearms lowers the likeliness of firearm-related crimes and violence. Sure, knife crimes would go up, but you can't stab someone in the back if they take off and run away faster than you can. Of course, there's going to be the determined criminal who trains to throw knives, or rigs his hat out like Oddjob in Goldfinger, but we'll address that issue when it comes. The inability to stop violence and crime doesn't mean we shouldn't try to reduce it.

They are not "honoring" him, budious, they are forgiving him. I've seen these groups on Facebook and they are not intended to honor or agree with what he did, they are Christian-founded groups which, as the saying goes, "forgive their enemies." Forgiveness is not a bad thing, and is actually the mark of a strong soul, especially in a violent crime such as this. The kid was mentally disturbed, very sad, I think, and though I have more sympathy for the victims of this tragedy, I am also sad about this kid's reaction to his own pain. I don't believe in revenge, I find it very un-Christian, so I really don't hold grudges against most people, and though I wasn't directly affected (though the George Mason community has been crawling with cops and a lot of people here, so close to Tech, are traumatized), most seem to have the sense to realize that there was a reason for this situation, not just random act of a violence. It was premeditated, but you watch the video this kid put out, it is very obvious that this kid needed help and not a gun and death. I have a funny feeling that some serious therapy and probably a few hugs could have saved this kid. I say this because my own pop's a therapist and we see these sort of things all the time in the Army--people on the verge of snapping who just need some attention, some kindness, and some love. Good to see you around, LaForge! Very few of the old-oldies still wandering about this place. I didn't realize there was a mafia presence in Hungary! What sort of a mafia? I mean, do they have a political intent/founding like others in Eastern Europe, or is like most mafias interested in racketeering?