# The Big Bang Theory [05/01/14] "The Proton Transmogrification"



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

I thought this was a good episode. However, I can't believe they killed Professor Proton. Jim Parsons and Bob Newhart interacted so well together. I don't see them bringing Newhart back as Obi Wan Proton. I know Newhart was only on a couple of times, but they were all so good.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

I am amused that Sheldon enjoys the political intrigue and the way Palpatine manipulated the Senate as the best parts of Episode I.

I'm in the same category. I find most of the film to be vacuous but the poltical machinations of Palpatine, building towards Emperor, which we only glimpse, are the best parts of the movie.

I really AM Sheldon, as my sister keeps telling me.


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

I'm guessing Bob Newhart doesn't want to do many more of these at his age, but really, this doesn't change how easy or hard it would be for them to bring him back if he does want to.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

He sure seemed to have fun doing the Kenobi stuff...I've never seen Captain Proton look that delighted, and rarely Bob Newhart.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> He sure seemed to have fun doing the Kenobi stuff...I've never seen Captain Proton look that delighted, and rarely Bob Newhart.


My thoughts exactly...he smiled more this episode than I've seen Newhart/Proton smile the past several years...


----------



## TonyTheTiger (Dec 22, 2006)

Isn't it *Professor *Proton?

I love Newhart's comic timing and thought he was great in this episode.

Loved Penny's reaction to knowing some of the Star Wars geeky stuff!


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

TonyTheTiger said:


> Isn't it *Professor *Proton?


He's a hero to me.

(That's my story and I'm sticking to it! )


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

TonyTheTiger said:


> Loved Penny's reaction to knowing some of the Star Wars geeky stuff!


I really enjoyed Penny and Leonard's interplay this week.

And Penny looked really good dressed up for the funeral. Her hair looked nicer than it has in awhile it seems.


----------



## Donbadabon (Mar 5, 2002)

I couldn't help but think of John Ritter's death when Penny was saying she had never been to a funeral before.

I really liked it when Sheldon gave Leonard the hug. I wish they would've left it at that and not immediately turned Sheldon back into Sheldon. Just give me a few minutes to enjoy him becoming more human.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Donbadabon said:


> I couldn't help but think of John Ritter's death when Penny was saying she had never been to a funeral before.
> 
> I really liked it when Sheldon gave Leonard the hug. I wish they would've left it at that and not immediately turned Sheldon back into Sheldon. Just give me a few minutes to enjoy him becoming more human.


Yes. I wish they had left it at that.

As much as I enjoy Professor Jedi Proton and Sheldon, and it was done well. and (why wouldn't Professor Proton be happy now that he is out of pain?) I hope they don't keep bringing him back. That would be sort of creepy.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

betts4 said:


> That would be sort of creepy.


He did say he had to come back any time that Sheldon needed him, so the door is wide open for future appearances.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Donbadabon said:


> I couldn't help but think of John Ritter's death when Penny was saying she had never been to a funeral before. I really liked it when Sheldon gave Leonard the hug. I wish they would've left it at that and not immediately turned Sheldon back into Sheldon. Just give me a few minutes to enjoy him becoming more human.


 Why? For a fantasy? He is Sheldon. He does have human feelings. He denies them or doesn't know how to express them but he has them. The Sheldon story was about him processing his grief. It wouldn't change his base nature. Very few deaths of people outside of immediate family do. Why should it change him? We saw a glimpse (not the first time) of the person inside. Not a tidal change in his base.

Any lingering over it would feel odd to me and make me think they were changing the character. Going back to normal was normal.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

betts4 said:


> Yes. I wish they had left it at that. As much as I enjoy Professor Jedi Proton and Sheldon, and it was done well. and (why wouldn't Professor Proton be happy now that he is out of pain?) I hope they don't keep bringing him back. That would be sort of creepy.


Why would it be creepy?


----------



## Shakhari (Jan 2, 2005)

Ereth said:


> I really AM Sheldon, as my sister keeps telling me.


Except you get sarcasm


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Shakhari said:


> Except you get sarcasm


Yeah. I'm much better at humor than Sheldon is, too. And I'm not that thin anymore, alas.


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

I loved the reference to the machete order of the movies. :up:


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Gunnyman said:


> I loved the reference to the machete order of the movies. :up:


I loved it so much I was considering watching them in Machete order on May 4th. But then I realized I have other plans and not enough time.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Gunnyman said:


> I loved the reference to the machete order of the movies. :up:


Except that über-geeks like this would already know about that and wouldn't need Raj to say, "On the internet, I read about this thing called the 'Machete Order.'" It would have been more realistic if they all mocked Raj for making that kind of comment as if it wasn't already common knowledge to all of them.

I did enjoy seeing how happy Bob Newhart appeared when he was swinging the light saber around.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> Except that über-geeks like this would already know about that and wouldn't need Raj to say, "On the internet, I read about this thing called the 'Machete Order.'" It would have been more realistic if they all mocked Raj for making that kind of comment as if it wasn't already common knowledge to all of them.


For that matter, all the "Star Wars trivia" that Penny knew was stuff that I think just about anybody with a pulse would know.

But I've said for years this is no longer a show about geeks...it's a show about stereotypes of geeks. Geeks are not the target audience. People who wouldn't know a Machete Order from an order of fries are.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> For that matter, all the "Star Wars trivia" that Penny knew was stuff that I think just about anybody with a pulse would know.
> 
> But I've said for years this is no longer a show about geeks...it's a show about stereotypes of geeks. Geeks are not the target audience. People who wouldn't know a Machete Order from an order of fries are.


Of course the show would have had to explain to the viewing audience what the Machete Order is, but to present it as if it were some novel concept that only Raj knew about was not the right way to introduce it.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> Of course the show would have had to explain to the viewing audience what the Machete Order is, but to present it as if it were some novel concept that only Raj knew about was not the right way to introduce it.


But if it were going to be a genuine show about geek culture, than virtually everything they do would have to be different.

It just ain't that kind of show. It doesn't do ANYTHING "the right way." Which is why more than a handful of people watch it.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

There are geeks and there are geeks. Most of my friends are geeks but i don't think any if them heard about the machete order before last night. Just because you are a geek does not mean you know every aspect of geekdom. 

Geeks would know that.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

I had never heard of it, and I'd consider myself a geek. I'm just not that big of a Star Wars geek.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

I love Bernadette...SOAB.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

LoadStar said:


> I had never heard of it, and I'd consider myself a geek. I'm just not that big of a Star Wars geek.


Me too. Heck, I even hated the first movie when it first came out. I have no clue what a machete order is or what it means (why it's called that). I didn't even understand the explanation when Raj said it.


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

Anubys said:


> Me too. Heck, I even hated the first movie when it first came out. I have no clue what a machete order is or what it means (why it's called that). I didn't even understand the explanation when Raj said it.


It means watch them in this order: IV, V, II, III, VI


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Anubys said:


> Me too. Heck, I even hated the first movie when it first came out. I have no clue what a machete order is or what it means (why it's called that). I didn't even understand the explanation when Raj said it.


Zordude explained what it is, but not why it is called Machete Order. The answer: the guy that came up with it [1] published it on his blog named "Absolutely No Machete Juggling."

[1] He admits he didn't so much come up with the idea; he just modified an idea that another individual came up with first by dropping episode I.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> I had never heard of it, and I'd consider myself a geek. I'm just not that big of a Star Wars geek.


Looks like you have company (i.e. lots of other people were looking it up). 

http://static.nomachetejuggling.com/machete_order.html


> The very sudden viral popularity of this post has crushed my webserver, so I've removed all of the images and junk. Sorry for the ugliness. If you want, you can view the original article on my blog, here.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I only knew about the Machete Order from seeing it mentioned in a couple threads here on TCF. I didn't know what the order actually was or why it was called that. 

But as I said before, people who love the movies so much that they are planning to spend the whole day on May 4th watching them would know that stuff.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

I am in no way a geek, however I did know about the alternative order, but not what it was called.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> But if it were going to be a genuine show about geek culture, than virtually everything they do would have to be different. It just ain't that kind of show. It doesn't do ANYTHING "the right way." Which is why more than a handful of people watch it.


I'm going to object to this, also. A huge amount if success for BBT is that the geek stuff is actually pretty accurate. You are making it out that geeks are only geeks yet geeks are actually pretty mainstream. Especially for those of us who work in engineering or science. I have several friends who are reasonably geeky as in they are into almost every geek item but the live regular lives as well. BBT has no cheated on geek arguments or discussion.

Your post makes it out that geeks are only represented by characters like Comic Book Guy.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

TonyD79 said:


> I'm going to object to this, also. A huge amount if success for BBT is that the geek stuff is actually pretty accurate. You are making it out that geeks are only geeks yet geeks are actually pretty mainstream. Especially for those of us who work in engineering or science. I have several friends who are reasonably geeky as in they are into almost every geek item but the live regular lives as well. BBT has no cheated on geek arguments or discussion.
> 
> Your post makes it out that geeks are only represented by characters like Comic Book Guy.


I would also say that there are various types of 'geeks'. Mundanes may not know the difference but we geeks do.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

TonyD79 said:


> I'm going to object to this, also. A huge amount if success for BBT is that the geek stuff is actually pretty accurate. You are making it out that geeks are only geeks yet geeks are actually pretty mainstream. Especially for those of us who work in engineering or science. I have several friends who are reasonably geeky as in they are into almost every geek item but the live regular lives as well. BBT has no cheated on geek arguments or discussion.
> 
> Your post makes it out that geeks are only represented by characters like Comic Book Guy.


No, his point is that they softened it to make it more accessible to a general audience. Penny used to be the "everyman" character, the character who was there for exposition, so they could explain the things the guys were into that the mundanes wouldn't get, but now all the characters play that role. Even when Sheldon and Leonard talk to one another, they are explaining for the audience things that both of them already know.

I disagree with Rob that they don't get anything right. The apartment is still dressed well, and the science on the boards is still correct.

It does remind me of conversations I have with friends who are not geeks, though, where I'm conscious of having to give them context before I tell them the joke. It does get to be habit if you have sufficient non-geek interactions, and I have slipped from time to time and explained things to other people that they already knew. So in that regard, it's probably more realistic than Rob is thinking, but I appreciate his point that it's not as far into geek territory as it used to be.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Ereth said:


> I disagree with Rob that they don't get anything right. The apartment is still dressed well, and the science on the boards is still correct.


I'm not saying they don't get anything right. I'm saying the tone of the show is a lot less geeky & academic than it used to be, and a lot more tied to popular stereotypes of geeks and academics. It's not the facts, so much as the way the facts are wielded.

But I know people get tired of me going on about this, so I'll stop now.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I'm not saying they don't get anything right. I'm saying the tone of the show is a lot less geeky & academic than it used to be, and a lot more tied to popular stereotypes of geeks and academics. It's not the facts, so much as the way the facts are wielded. But I know people get tired of me going on about this, so I'll stop now.


 Or we disagree. Go back and watch the reruns. The only difference is the addition of characters who the guys relate to. To say that a show that was wildly popular from day one was changed to be popular is just silly.

Oh. And I wish you would write what you mean rather than having others interpret it then you post exact contradictions in your next point.

So they not get anything right or not?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

TonyD79 said:


> Oh. And I wish you would write what you mean rather than having others interpret it then you post exact contradictions in your next point.
> 
> So they not get anything right or not?


I said exactly what I meant. It was misinterpreted.

"It doesn't do ANYTHING 'the right way'" is different than "they [do] not get anything right." Unfortunately, context matters; my statement was in the context of the way the geeks on the show interact (Raj explaining machete order). And I realize that in a thread, people tend to look at posts in isolation and not consider the exact context. But I stand by my statement that in the context of the geek interactions they don't do it the right way, and that they do throw in a lot of accurate facts.

By the way, the show was ranked 68 in Season 1, 44 in Season 2, and 12 in Season 3. So there was a pretty big jump over the span I saw it as becoming less genuinely geeky and more stereotypically geeky.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I said exactly what I meant. It was misinterpreted. "It doesn't do ANYTHING 'the right way'" is different than "they [do] not get anything right." .


No, it is not. I am a geek. You are using the equivalent of de morgan logic. Those two phrases are the same.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

TonyD79 said:


> No, it is not. I am a geek. You are using the equivalent of de morgan logic. Those two phrases are the same.


Only if you ignore precise wording and context.

But there's obviously no point getting into this with you.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I'm not saying they don't get anything right. I'm saying the tone of the show is a lot less geeky & academic than it used to be, and a lot more tied to popular stereotypes of geeks and academics. It's not the facts, so much as the way the facts are wielded.
> 
> But I know people get tired of me going on about this, so I'll stop now.


I see what you mean and I don't disagree at all.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Ereth said:


> No, his point is that they softened it to make it more accessible to a general audience. Penny used to be the "everyman" character, the character who was there for exposition, so they could explain the things the guys were into that the mundanes wouldn't get, but now all the characters play that role. Even when Sheldon and Leonard talk to one another, they are explaining for the audience things that both of them already know.


That happens all of the time on television. Doctors explaining things to other doctors that they should both already know. Cops explaining to cops, lawyers explaining to lawyers etc. etc. It isn't their goal to replicate reality, it's their goal to make it accessible.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Azlen said:


> That happens all of the time on television. Doctors explaining things to other doctors that they should both already know. Cops explaining to cops, lawyers explaining to lawyers etc. etc. It isn't there goal to replicate reality, it's their goal to make it accessible.


Nor do I think it has changed over the run of this show. I don't believe that there has been a change in "geekiness" that Rob believes.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> Nor do I think it has changed over the run of this show. I don't believe that there has been a change in "geekiness" that Rob believes.


I agree with Rob.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

murgatroyd said:


> I agree with Rob.


I also think it's much more pronounced on the academic than the pop-culture side of things. For geek-culture references, they're still getting the basic facts straight at least at a Wikipedia level (e.g., knowing what Machete Order is). The academic stuff has gone from feeling like people who work at an actual university department to, well, not...it's now the equivalent of not only getting Machete Order wrong, but confusing Star Wars and Star Trek. There's no sense any more that the writers have any clue what goes on in Academia, even on a basic, factual level (e.g., knowing what tenure is and who gets it).

So I suspect that people who know the academic world well are more likely to have felt the change I'm talking about...


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

Exactly.


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 1, 2004)

Azlen said:


> That happens all of the time on television. Doctors explaining things to other doctors that they should both already know. Cops explaining to cops, lawyers explaining to lawyers etc. etc. It isn't their goal to replicate reality, it's their goal to make it accessible.


It's called "exposition". Playwrights have been doing it since BC times in Greece.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposition_(narrative)

The exposition is the portion of a story that introduces important background information to the audience; for example, information about the setting, events occurring before the main plot, characters' back stories, etc.[1] Exposition can be conveyed through dialogues, flashbacks, character's thoughts,[2] background details, in-universe media[3] or the narrator telling a back-story.[2] Alexander Bain and John Genung described exposition as one of four rhetorical modes of discourse, along with argumentation, description, and narration


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

Where would Star Trek be without the briefing room?


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Right. Exposition is important. But it's also why there's almost always a character who doesn't know, so they can represent the audience, and ask the questions that the other characters already knew the answer to.

Watson exists purely because Holmes needs a way to explain his deductive process, for example.

In the early seasons, Penny performed that function. She would see the guys doing something odd and ask what the heck, and they'd explain it to her. AFF and Bernadette don't work that well for that, as they are scientists and know much of the same information. Penny remains the "Everyman" that the audience gets it's information through, but as she become insinuated into their environment and soaks it up herself, it becomes more and more difficult for her to ask things, so the exposition becomes more convoluted.


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

Plus Amy and Bernadette don't care.

"PLEASE PASS THE BUTTER!"


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

I never heard of the machete order either, but then again, I'm really not that big of a SW fan.

eta: I still think I've never really seen Return of the Jedi all the way through in one sitting. I've seen bits and pieces of it.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Hank said:


> I never heard of the machete order either, but then again, I'm really not that big of a SW fan.
> 
> eta: I still think I've never really seen Return of the Jedi all the way through in one sitting. I've seen bits and pieces of it.


I used to complain about Jedi. Lucas was exhausted and the film isn't up to the standards of the first two.

Then the prequels came out and made Jedi look brilliant by comparison.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> For that matter, all the "Star Wars trivia" that Penny knew was stuff that I think just about anybody with a pulse would know.
> 
> But I've said for years this is no longer a show about geeks...it's a show about stereotypes of geeks. Geeks are not the target audience. People who wouldn't know a Machete Order from an order of fries are.


I don't think geeks were EVER the target audience, and the writers knew that writing stuff over the head of the general viewer was not going to work (a lesson that Community never learned, hence the reason the ratings have never been good). You'd be surprised how many people know very little about Star Wars or have never seen it. Some of it is pop culture, but some is something that only people who've seen the movie would have an inkling of what they were talking about. I've seen the movie more times than I can count, but never heard of the Machete cut. I guess I don't have much geek cred, but that doesn't mean I'm not a fan of the movie.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> I only knew about the Machete Order from seeing it mentioned in a couple threads here on TCF. I didn't know what the order actually was or why it was called that.
> 
> But as I said before, people who love the movies so much that they are planning to spend the whole day on May 4th watching them would know that stuff.


Nope. My son had no idea, watched them all on May 4th. I would expect TBBT guys to know it though.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> I'm going to object to this, also. A huge amount if success for BBT is that the geek stuff is actually pretty accurate. You are making it out that geeks are only geeks yet geeks are actually pretty mainstream. Especially for those of us who work in engineering or science. I have several friends who are reasonably geeky as in they are into almost every geek item but the live regular lives as well. BBT has no cheated on geek arguments or discussion.
> 
> Your post makes it out that geeks are only represented by characters like Comic Book Guy.


I agree. Geeks today are not the geeks of the 80s and 90s. Those are the stereotypical geeks. In fact girls actually LIKE some geeks these days


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

It has been discussed in various articles - how much of this is the writers showing the audience and wanting the audience to laugh with us or laugh at us.

Laugh with us at their silly geeky way of life or laugh at us at the bizarre things the geeks do.

I think the idea has always been to laugh with us. I found it even more justified when my brother - not a Star Wars fan, not a collector of action figures, not a comic book reader, was telling me on the phone about an episode they watched and he really enjoyed. Now he is watching it on TMC reruns. I never would have thought he would enjoy the show. I don't know if that has helped him understand my love for SW or collecting or such, but it made for an interesting conversation. 

Oh, my brother is an engineer and went to a pretty upscale university - but nothing more than a 4 yr degree.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I also think it's much more pronounced on the academic than the pop-culture side of things. For geek-culture references, they're still getting the basic facts straight at least at a Wikipedia level (e.g., knowing what Machete Order is). The academic stuff has gone from feeling like people who work at an actual university department to, well, not...it's now the equivalent of not only getting Machete Order wrong, but confusing Star Wars and Star Trek. There's no sense any more that the writers have any clue what goes on in Academia, even on a basic, factual level (e.g., knowing what tenure is and who gets it).
> 
> So I suspect that people who know the academic world well are more likely to have felt the change I'm talking about...


BTW, that's all a good thing, not a bad thing. The show would have been cancelled a long time ago had they stuck with an uber geek scenario.

It's also much more about the characters and less about geeky THINGS. That's a natural progression in a TV show. You also see the growth away from being uber geeks to a more mainstream existence.

For me, I watched the first 2-3 episodes and though the show was meh, and that it only spoke to those who were familiar with what they were talking about. It got better when we got to know who the characters were and how they interacted with the outside world. They kept Sheldon as the uber geek, and he still mostly is. The rest of the group has become more "socialized".


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Ereth said:


> Right. Exposition is important. But it's also why there's almost always a character who doesn't know, so they can represent the audience, and ask the questions that the other characters already knew the answer to.
> 
> Watson exists purely because Holmes needs a way to explain his deductive process, for example.
> 
> In the early seasons, Penny performed that function. She would see the guys doing something odd and ask what the heck, and they'd explain it to her. AFF and Bernadette don't work that well for that, as they are scientists and know much of the same information. Penny remains the "Everyman" that the audience gets it's information through, but as she become insinuated into their environment and soaks it up herself, it becomes more and more difficult for her to ask things, so the exposition becomes more convoluted.


It's funny you mention Bernadette, yet, we've seen over and over that Bernadette has NO interest in Star Wars. In fact, when she met Howard she had never seen it (I can't recall if she has or hasn't since, I know she was going to watch it for Howard).

I agree that Penny is harder to use to explain geek things to, but in this case, she could have been used to explain machete.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Steveknj said:


> It's funny you mention Bernadette, yet, we've seen over and over that Bernadette has NO interest in Star Wars. In fact, when she met Howard she had never seen it (I can't recall if she has or hasn't since, I know she was going to watch it for Howard).
> 
> I agree that Penny is harder to use to explain geek things to, but in this case, she could have been used to explain machete.


I think it's safe to say that Bernadette still has no real interest or knowledge in Star Wars - yet she and AFF were making a death star cake for the guys. That has happened in many American homes over the years. Moms that couldn't tell you the difference between the red and blue in a lightsaber, but put on Star Wars themed birthday parties - for both kids and hubby.

They also have Sheldon explain things to AFF or Leonard becuase they just aren't in his particular line of science.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Steveknj said:


> For me, I watched the first 2-3 episodes and though the show was meh, and that it only spoke to those who were familiar with what they were talking about. It got better when we got to know who the characters were and how they interacted with the outside world. They kept Sheldon as the uber geek, and he still mostly is. The rest of the group has become more "socialized".


Good for the show, absolutely. I just miss a show that spoke to me more directly.


Steveknj said:


> For me, I watched the first 2-3 episodes and though the show was meh, and that it only spoke to those who were familiar with what they were talking about. It got better when we got to know who the characters were and how they interacted with the outside world. They kept Sheldon as the uber geek, and he still mostly is. The rest of the group has become more "socialized".


And that's exactly the point I've tried to make for years. The show has become more accessible by focusing less on actual academic nerd culture, and more on popular views of that culture. To, as you say, the benefit of the show's ratings and success.

(Although I would say it got worse when that happened, but that's just my perspective, and I understand why they did it and why it worked.)


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

betts4 said:


> ....couldn't tell you the difference between the red and blue in a lightsaber.....


There's a difference? What's the difference?


----------



## loubob57 (Mar 19, 2001)

Bierboy said:


> There's a difference? What's the difference?


What! You don't know?

Neither do I. Glad you asked so I didn't have to.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

I have been going to SF cons for over 30 years and have never heard of the Macheti order but then again, I am not a Star Wars geek. I prefer Star Trek. Though I like both.


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

In reflection this show is just a different take on the old fish out of water scenario in the vein of Bewitched, I Dream of Jeanie, Alf, Third Rock. Lorre just found a slightly different situation that worked.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

I admit it.

I am a Star Wars geek.

I have heard of the machete order.

I am also a science fiction reader and watcher movies.

WHICH not every Star Wars geek is. Within geekdom there are groups and sometimes poeple can mix the groups and sometimes they just don't want to. Heck, even within the inner groups there are more inner groups. Some readers of Science fiction want just hard science and some don't mind reading fantasy like LOR or Darkover. I like both. I am not a comic collector but like reading them. I could not tell you who all the X-men are beyond maybe about 5 or 6. I could name the Justice League. And so on.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

Bierboy said:


> There's a difference? What's the difference?


Thunder stolen, it is.


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

sieglinde said:


> I have been going to SF cons for over 30 years and have never heard of the Macheti order but then again, I am not a Star Wars geek. I prefer Star Trek. Though I like both.


The machete order has only existed for 3 years, so the other 27 that you have been going to SF cons doesn't really come into play.


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

As others I only know of the Machete Order because of the discussions here. Of course this is a pretty geeky place. I'm pretty sure it was one of those threads asking what order should I show it to my kids.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

betts4 said:


> I admit it.
> 
> I am a Star Wars geek.
> 
> ...


Reading this makes me think that explaining the machete order is not really out of line. It doesn't mean all of the guys in the group (and Penny) are on the same level of Star Wars geekdom.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> Reading this makes me think that explaining the machete order is not really out of line. It doesn't mean all of the guys in the group (and Penny) are on the same level of Star Wars geekdom.


Bingo.

This discussion also helps disprove the theory that BBT has become less geeky. The fact that the machete order was even discussed on the show shows geekiness at about the level of TCF or above. While TCF may not be the geekiest place on the earth, it sure is in a high percentile.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> Bingo.
> 
> This discussion also helps disprove the theory that BBT has become less geeky. The fact that the machete order was even discussed on the show shows geekiness at about the level of TCF or above. While TCF may not be the geekiest place on the earth, it sure is in a high percentile.


That's how I look at it. I think they are the same level geeky, they just don't focus on the fact that they ARE geeky as often. I always felt the series was more about them developing as people who are not defined solely as geeks and that the female character in their own way help them along. Bernie is a geek, but is definitely more a geek in her job than outside of it. AFF is a geek who really wants to explore what it's like to NOT be one, since she has always lived the geek life, and Penny is the non-geek who's actually added geekyness to her social skills.

Then take Raj. Really it's hard to think of him as your classic stereotypical geek. He's interested in male fashion and pop culture and cooking, all things definitely NOT associated with the stereotype.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Steveknj said:


> That's how I look at it. I think they are the same level geeky, they just don't focus on the fact that they ARE geeky as often. I always felt the series was more about them developing as people who are not defined solely as geeks and that the female character in their own way help them along. Bernie is a geek, but is definitely more a geek in her job than outside of it. AFF is a geek who really wants to explore what it's like to NOT be one, since she has always lived the geek life, and Penny is the non-geek who's actually added geekyness to her social skills.
> 
> Then take Raj. Really it's hard to think of him as your classic stereotypical geek. He's interested in male fashion and pop culture and cooking, all things definitely NOT associated with the stereotype.


Bernie is a geek?
AFF is a geek?

Maybe I need to have the geek stereotype defined for me.

I don't find either of them, well, geeky.

AFF's reaction to some of Sheldon's interests seem more like the Girlfriend wanting to learn because of her boyfriend. Could she tell you the significance between the red lightsaber and the blue one? Not sure, she hasn't shown that she could. And their reaction to the comic book store adventure sort of showed us all that.

Yes, they are scientists but I don't see that as making them geeky.

Or maybe geeky in another way? maybe?


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Steveknj said:


> Reading this makes me think that explaining the machete order is not really out of line. It doesn't mean all of the guys in the group (and Penny) are on the same level of Star Wars geekdom.


Yep. You just said it better than I did.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

betts4 said:


> I think it's safe to say that Bernadette still has no real interest or knowledge in Star Wars - yet she and AFF were making a death star cake for the guys. That has happened in many American homes over the years. Moms that couldn't tell you the difference between the red and blue in a lightsaber, but put on Star Wars themed birthday parties - for both kids and hubby.


Yep, Bernadette was very clear about still having no interest. She cursed over the fact that they got there just in time to start the movies again.

I'm with her: I'd much rather bake a cake than watch star wars. I'm a geek over plenty of stuff, that's just not on my list.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Robin said:


> Yep, Bernadette was very clear about still having no interest. She cursed over the fact that they got there just in time to start the movies again.
> 
> I'm with her: I'd much rather bake a cake than watch star wars. I'm a geek over plenty of stuff, that's just not on my list.


LOL and I would make the cake, and then nitpick to make sure details were correct and then try to figure out how to have an x-wing shooting down the thermal exhaust port. Oh wait, maybe you could make it a lava cake so when it exploded there would be yummy stuff inside.


----------



## loubob57 (Mar 19, 2001)

Robin said:


> Yep, Bernadette was very clear about still having no interest. She cursed over the fact that they got there just in time to start the movies again.
> 
> I'm with her: I'd much rather bake a cake than watch star wars. I'm a geek over plenty of stuff, that's just not on my list.


Have you ever made a spherical cake?


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

Only once... 

I laughed so hard at that scene I had to rewind and re-watch.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

betts4 said:


> Bernie is a geek?
> AFF is a geek?
> 
> Maybe I need to have the geek stereotype defined for me.
> ...


But that's just it, you're quoting the "stereotypical" geek. By the definition of the stereotypical geek, Raj isn't one either.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Steveknj said:


> But that's just it, you're quoting the "stereotypical" geek. By the definition of the stereotypical geek, Raj isn't one either.


How so? he knows his Star Wars stuff, he wears his costumes, he collects comics. I also have geeky friends that sew, love to cook and own small dogs.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

betts4 said:


> Bernie is a geek?
> AFF is a geek?
> 
> Maybe I need to have the geek stereotype defined for me.
> ...


Bernie and AFF are _nerds_.

Some of us are nerds, some of us are geeks, and some of us are both.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

betts4 said:


> LOL and I would make the cake, and then nitpick to make sure details were correct and then try to figure out how to have an x-wing shooting down the thermal exhaust port. Oh wait, maybe you could make it a lava cake so when it exploded there would be yummy stuff inside.


For a _real_ challenge try to make a detail correct RotJ Deathstar cake.

I foresee significant structural issues due to it's incompleteness


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

murgatroyd said:


> Bernie and AFF are nerds.
> 
> Some of us are nerds, some of us are geeks, and some of us are both.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

So amy and Bernadette are dweebs?

Well. More Amy.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

betts4 said:


> How so? he knows his Star Wars stuff, he wears his costumes, he collects comics. I also have geeky friends that sew, love to cook and own small dogs.


He's much more into pop culture, much more into metro-sexual things than the "stereoptypical" geek. There are LOTS of different geeks. Leonard, Sheldon and Howard are closer to the stereotypical geek than Raj is. They are ALL geeks though, as are AFF and to a lesser extent Bernadette.


----------



## kdonnel (Nov 28, 2000)

TonyD79 said:


> So amy and Bernadette are dweebs?
> 
> Well. More Amy.


They both seem to have some level of obsession in their field of work.


----------



## Craigbob (Dec 2, 2006)

DevdogAZ said:


> Of course the show would have had to explain to the viewing audience what the Machete Order is, but to present it as if it were some novel concept that only Raj knew about was not the right way to introduce it.


Yes they did, but there's a couple of other ways of doing it, for example:

Raj: "I know let's do something different this year. Lets watch it in Machete Order."

Sheldon: "Oh What? Watch Episodes IV, then V, then jump back to II and III like a flashback and finish off with Episode VI? That's just crazy talk. You might as well watch Star Trek out of order."


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Craigbob said:


> Yes they did, but there's a couple of other ways of doing it, for example:
> 
> Raj: "I know let's do something different this year. Lets watch it in Machete Order."
> 
> Sheldon: "Oh What? Watch Episodes IV, then V, then jump back to II and III like a flashback and finish off with Episode VI? That's just crazy talk. You might as well watch Star Trek out of order."


Having the second person explaining to the first what he already knows is really horrible exposition. That's like grade school level writing.


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> Having the second person explaining to the first what he already knows is really horrible exposition. That's like grade school level writing.


I think craigbob's dialogue does more than that.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

LoadStar said:


> Having the second person explaining to the first what he already knows is really horrible exposition. That's like grade school level writing.


Right. Why wouldn't Penny, Amy, or Bern just ask "what is Machette order?"


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Hank said:


> Right. Why wouldn't Penny, Amy, or Bern just ask "what is Machette order?"


Because the problem there is that they don't care. You could make it work with one of the ladies, but it's still somewhat awkward because you'd have to have them react afterwords like "I'm sorry I asked." It is easiest/most natural to do like they did, have someone who would be interested who just doesn't know yet.


----------



## Craigbob (Dec 2, 2006)

LoadStar said:


> Having the second person explaining to the first what he already knows is really horrible exposition. That's like grade school level writing.


While I agree with you that it's expository, it solves the problem of geeks not knowing what it is, and lets the audience (who may not be aware of it) know what it is.

I thought about having Penny ask what it is but seem to recall that the conversation came after her and Leonard left for the funeral.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

LoadStar said:


> Because the problem there is that they don't care. You could make it work with one of the ladies, but it's still somewhat awkward because you'd have to have them react afterwords like "I'm sorry I asked." It is easiest/most natural to do like they did, have someone who would be interested who just doesn't know yet.


Except that they didn't do it that way, with one character mentioning it and another asking what it is. Raj just threw it out there without anyone asking:



> *Raj:* You know, I heard this way of watching the movies called the 'Machete Order,' where you watch Episodes Four and Five, then skip Episode One, watch Two and Three as a flashback, and then finish with Six.


That's the reason why I brought this up in the first place. With him just throwing that out there as if it's a novel concept, I would expect at least one of the other characters, all of them die-hard SW geeks, to pipe up and at least acknowledge that they'd heard of this before. But instead, they all just accepted his unsolicited exposition without question or snark. That's my issue with it.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Craigbob said:


> While I agree with you that it's expository, it solves the problem of geeks not knowing what it is, and lets the audience (who may not be aware of it) know what it is.
> 
> I thought about having Penny ask what it is but seem to recall that the conversation came after her and Leonard left for the funeral.


Correct. It was just Raj, Sheldon, and Howard in the room at the time. And both Howard and Sheldon reacted to it as if they'd never heard of it.

Based on responses to this thread, I guess it's totally plausible that Sheldon or Howard wouldn't have heard of it before. I just found it a little unrealistic. If a non-SW geek like me knows about it, they definitely should.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Did the whole thing make you laugh? If the answer is yes, then in the end that was the point, wasn't it?


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> Except that they didn't do it that way, with one character mentioning it and another asking what it is. Raj just threw it out there without anyone asking: That's the reason why I brought this up in the first place. With him just throwing that out there as if it's a novel concept, I would expect at least one of the other characters, all of them die-hard SW geeks, to pipe up and at least acknowledge that they'd heard of this before. But instead, they all just accepted his unsolicited exposition without question or snark. That's my issue with it.


And yet most people here said they didn't know what machete order is. It seemed natural to me. They could have included some lines deriding Raj for his explanation but time is important as well.


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> Did the whole thing make you laugh? If the answer is yes, then in the end that was the point, wasn't it?


Huh? You watch comedies to laugh? Not to pick them apart?

Weirdo.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

scooterboy said:


> Huh? You watch comedies to laugh? Not to pick them apart? Weirdo.


Only BBT. So I can be part of the conversation here.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

Craigbob said:


> Yes they did, but there's a couple of other ways of doing it, for example:
> 
> Raj: "I know let's do something different this year. Lets watch it in Machete Order."
> 
> Sheldon: "Oh What? Watch Episodes IV, then V, then jump back to II and III like a flashback and finish off with Episode VI? That's just crazy talk. You might as well watch Star Trek out of order."


It would have been more in character to go back to an old line of Sheldon's; "I prefer to let George Lucas disappoint me in the order he intended"

Of course then you wouldn't have machete order actually explained. (_And_ they'd be arguing whether chronological or production order was "intended"  - been there, done that. Though for books, not for Star Wars)


----------



## Craigbob (Dec 2, 2006)

Jonathan_S said:


> It would have been more in character to go back to an old line of Sheldon's; "I prefer to let George Lucas disappoint me in the order he intended"
> 
> Of course then you wouldn't have machete order actually explained. (_And_ they'd be arguing whether chronological or production order was "intended"  - been there, done that. Though for books, not for Star Wars)


How's this then?

Raj: "I know let's do something different this year. Lets watch it in Machete Order."

Sheldon: "Oh What? Watch Episodes IV, then V, then jump back to II and III like a flashback and finish off with Episode VI? No; I prefer to let George Lucas disappoint me in the order he intended"


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Same problem as I noted above.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

murgatroyd said:


> Bernie and AFF are _nerds_.
> 
> Some of us are nerds, some of us are geeks, and some of us are both.


AFF definitely is a nerd.. I'm not sure if Bernadette is, unless just because she's involved in science makes her a nerd (though they don't talk about her job much anymore).


----------



## midas (Jun 1, 2000)

See I'd consider the tech and science knowledge aspect to be the geek factor. I'd consider the Star Wars/Star Trek stuff to be nerd factor. I mean, you call Best Buy and have the Geek Squad come to your house, they aren't coming to watch Star Wars with you.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

Best Buy gets to define "geek" now? 

Chuck got it right.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> Correct. It was just Raj, Sheldon, and Howard in the room at the time. And both Howard and Sheldon reacted to it as if they'd never heard of it.
> 
> Based on responses to this thread, I guess it's totally plausible that Sheldon or Howard wouldn't have heard of it before. I just found it a little unrealistic. If a non-SW geek like me knows about it, they definitely should.


I'm a decently informed SW geek but I'm not in to any of the EU items, and I had not heard of "Machete order" until they mentioned it, keep in mind I refuse to call it A New Hope, it'll always be Star Wars to me


----------



## midas (Jun 1, 2000)

Robin said:


> Best Buy gets to define "geek" now?
> 
> Chuck got it right.


Of course not. But I've been called a geek my whole life and I've never disagreed with that classification. I've only seen the original Star Wars movie and the original Star Trek series. I might have seen the original Star Trek movie but never had an urge to see any of the other movies or subsequent series. I would never wait in line to get into the movie theater to see any of those movies.

I've never, in my life, been called a nerd. I've never considered myself a nerd. I never considered any of the people I worked with nerds unless they were into the other stuff that I consider nerdy.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

LoadStar said:


> Same problem as I noted above.


Agreed. 
Though I think it'd be a _little_ less awkward, but also less informative, to change it to something like:
Sheldon: "Watch them out of order? No; I prefer to let George Lucas disappoint me in the order he intended"


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

dianebrat said:


> I'm a decently informed SW geek but I'm not in to any of the EU items, and I had not heard of "Machete order" until they mentioned it, keep in mind I refuse to call it A New Hope, it'll always be Star Wars to me


And I ONLY call it "A New Hope", that or "Episode IV". Drives my friends nuts.


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

Ereth said:


> And I ONLY call it "A New Hope", that or "Episode IV". Drives my friends nuts.


Post reported.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

dianebrat said:


> I'm a decently informed SW geek but I'm not in to any of the EU items, and I had not heard of "Machete order" until they mentioned it,* keep in mind I refuse to call it A New Hope, it'll always be Star Wars to me *


Same here. None of this New Hope crap.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

betts4 said:


> Same here. None of this New Hope crap.


Even though it was called a New Hope when the series was still good? 1981, right?


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

TonyD79 said:


> Even though it was called a New Hope when the series was still good? 1981, right?


Nope. No "Epiosde IV", no "New Hope", and the year was 1977.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

BrettStah said:


> Nope. No "Epiosde IV", no "New Hope", and the year was 1977.


:up:

Now that's Star Wars!!! (and any good SW geek would agree!  )


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

It was always supposed to be Episode IV: A New Hope, but Lucas wasn't sure it would make enough money to make a sequel and he didn't want to confuse the audience.

Once he had all that money, Empire was released in 1980 with "Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back" and the first film was re-released in 1981 with "Episode IV: A New Hope" in the opening crawl for the first time.

I remember all those people in 1980 coming out of Empire asking "Episode V? What happened to 2, 3 and 4?" and having to try to explain to them that the film they knew as Star Wars was episode IV. Lucas explained all of that to us in Starlog and every other interview he did in the intervening years between when Episodes IV and V came out.

Star Wars is the name of the overall story, it's part of the Clone Wars and everything else. It doesn't refer to any individual film.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Ereth said:


> It was always supposed to be Episode IV: A New Hope, but Lucas wasn't sure it would make enough money to make a sequel and he didn't want to confuse the audience. Once he had all that money, Empire was released in 1980 with "Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back" and the first film was re-released in 1981 with "Episode IV: A New Hope" in the opening crawl for the first time. I remember all those people in 1980 coming out of Empire asking "Episode V? What happened to 2, 3 and 4?" and having to try to explain to them that the film they knew as Star Wars was episode IV. Lucas explained all of that to us in Starlog and every other interview he did in the intervening years between when Episodes IV and V came out. Star Wars is the name of the overall story, it's part of the Clone Wars and everything else. It doesn't refer to any individual film.


Where have you heard that it was always supposed to be Episode IV: A New Hope? I've seen it was initially going to be called The Star Wars, The Star Wars: From the Adventures of Luke Starkiller, The Adventures of Luke Starkiller, Saga I: Star Wars, and so on.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

BrettStah said:


> Where have you heard that it was always supposed to be Episode IV: A New Hope? I've seen it was initially going to be called The Star Wars, The Star Wars: From the Adventures of Luke Starkiller, The Adventures of Luke Starkiller, Saga I: Star Wars, and so on.


Lucas says, in nearly every interview he's ever given, that the original idea he had was too big, and he had to figure out what he could do. Because of that, he started in the middle of the story.

He said so in 1977, and he said so last year. Back then, he said there were 12 stories, but over time that reduced to 9. We've also since learned that he had a very broad storyline with lots of room to change, and poorly filled in. Most of the story he had in mind for the first trilogy ended up in Episode III, by his own admission.

He didn't tell us back in 1977 that the idea was Anakin Skywalkers redemption story, either because that would have been a spoiler, or because he really didn't know yet (take your pick), but he told us, in some early Starlog (and I long ago sold my Starlog collection so I can't go look it up, sorry), that it was supposed to be Episode IV, but he wasn't sure anybody would even go see the thing (most movie studios had passed after all) and he thought it would be too weird to have a single movie labelled that way.

The original idea was to hearken to the serials of his youth, which ran before the feature film, and were always done in multiple chapters (see "Zombies of the Stratosphere" for an example).

In any case, I didn't know it was Episode IV before it came out, nor the first year, but I definitely knew before Empire came out. So somewhere in that intervening three years is when he told us. Obviously by the time Empire came out, he had put Episode V at the beginning, and then when Episode IV was re-released the following year, it had "Episode IV" tagged at the beginning.

The re-release in 1978 did not have "Episode IV" in the crawl, though. And it had at least one important edit. Obi-Wan, when he's told that R2 claims to be his property, says "I don't recall ever owning a droid". In 1977 he continued "At least not one of these modern ones". That was cut in the 1978 re-release as Lucas had decided that the droids would be the framing device for all (then-12) movies, and would therefore not be "new", as they had to exist in the prequels, and Obi-Wan can't call them modern then. (There's also a minor edit in the Cantina sequence, but it doesn't change anything and tightens the scene slightly, so it's hardly worth mentioning, other than to say that I was going to see Star Wars every time I could in 1977 and 1978 and I was practically obnoxious talking to my friends about these edits, because I had the movie memorized by then, and they leaped out at me. Now, I don't remember it that precisely. Getting old sucks.

I'm not disagreeing about those other names you mention, by the way. He certainly went through them all. But what we got was always intended to be the first part of the middle of the story. It was never "Episode I" of whatever the overall name was going to be.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Ereth said:


> Lucas says, in nearly every interview he's ever given, that the original idea he had was too big, and he had to figure out what he could do. Because of that, he started in the middle of the story.
> 
> He said so in 1977, and he said so last year. Back then, he said there were 12 stories, but over time that reduced to 9. We've also since learned that he had a very broad storyline with lots of room to change, and poorly filled in. Most of the story he had in mind for the first trilogy ended up in Episode III, by his own admission.
> 
> ...


You are right, it was never "episode one". Never said it was.

But it was "Star Wars" with no IV or New Hope attached to it. At first. Originally.

That he added that IV later, because he really could make a sequel and thus make the vision of the serial movies come true, is fine. I have also heard him say that was his thought but he didn't know if it could happen.

I was there in 1977 and 1978 and I was in high school. Old enough to remember differences.

As for all the changes and other names. Heck that happens. I mean, originally Luke was supposed to be a girl. Then he became twins. And thus Leia was created.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

Ereth said:


> The re-release in 1978 did not have "Episode IV" in the crawl, though. And it had at least one important edit. Obi-Wan, when he's told that R2 claims to be his property, says "I don't recall ever owning a droid". In 1977 he continued "At least not one of these modern ones". That was cut in the 1978 re-release as Lucas had decided that the droids would be the framing device for all (then-12) movies, and would therefore not be "new", as they had to exist in the prequels, and Obi-Wan can't call them modern then. (There's also a minor edit in the Cantina sequence, but it doesn't change anything and tightens the scene slightly, so it's hardly worth mentioning, other than to say that I was going to see Star Wars every time I could in 1977 and 1978 and I was practically obnoxious talking to my friends about these edits, because I had the movie memorized by then, and they leaped out at me. Now, I don't remember it that precisely. Getting old sucks.


"Close the blast doors! Close the blast doors!"


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

The only original material I have from that time is the John Williams sound track. The liner notes do not mention Episode IV or New Hope. They say that Darth Vader is Lord of the Sith, but I don't remember Sith being mentioned anywhere in the movie.

Peter Cushing was also given equal billing with Alec Guiness as the movie's established stars.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

murgatroyd said:


> "Close the blast doors! Close the blast doors!"


An edit that drove me crazy.


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

Not being a SW geek, much of this is news to me. I am finding the discussion interesting.

I also found this reference. I had no idea there were so many changes.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_changes_in_Star_Wars_re-releases

ETA: Reading through these I find it interesting that I thought some of the changes were me not remembering correctly.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

IIRC, In IV, the big yellow scroll at the beginning starts with something like "Chapter IV: A New Hope". Are we saying that that titling was _not_ there in the original theatrical release back in 1977?


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

betts4 said:


> You are right, it was never "episode one". Never said it was.
> 
> But it was "Star Wars" with no IV or New Hope attached to it. At first. Originally.
> 
> ...


I don't think I disagreed with that. I saw the movie repeatedly in 1977, and I was in college.

As I said in my post, the actual words "Episode IV" didn't appear in either the 1977 or 1978 releases, but first appeared in the 1981 release, a year after Empire came out.

"Star Wars" is the title of the entire saga, which includes all 6 films, the Clone Wars TV show, etc, much like "The Hunger Games" is the overall name for all 3 films, each of which has their own title. Saying "I watched Star Wars last night" allows too much room for interpretation, leading to potential confusion.

"Game of Thrones" is the name of the first book in the "Song of Ice and Fire" series. It's also the name of the TV series. "I watched Game of Thrones last night" usually leads to "which episode?". "I watched Star Wars last night" should engender the same response.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

busyba said:


> IIRC, In IV, the big yellow scroll at the beginning starts with something like "Chapter IV: A New Hope". Are we saying that that titling was _not_ there in the original theatrical release back in 1977?


That's correct. It was not added until the 1981 re-release.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

busyba said:


> IIRC, In IV, the big yellow scroll at the beginning starts with something like "Chapter IV: A New Hope". Are we saying that that titling was _not_ there in the original theatrical release back in 1977?


Correct.



BrettStah said:


> Nope. No "Epiosde IV", no "New Hope", and the year was 1977.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Ereth said:


> "Star Wars" is the title of the entire saga, which includes all 6 films, the Clone Wars TV show, etc, much like "The Hunger Games" is the overall name for all 3 films, each of which has their own title. Saying "I watched Star Wars last night" allows too much room for interpretation, leading to potential confusion.


I would conservatively estimate that about 99% of the people who hear someone say "I watched Star Wars last night" would conclude that the person watched Episode IV.

And those people would be correct in their conclusion roughly 99% of the time.

The other 1% in those two groups are Sheldon. 

Isn't the title of the first movie from the Hunger Games saga simply "The Hunger Games"?


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

The first movie (Ep IV) was always Star Wars to me, until the first three episodes came out. That's when I started calling it Ep IV (or A New Hope). While NOW Star Wars refers to the series, originally it was also the name of the first movie, especially since Lucas had no idea how successful it would be. I would think of it like Rocky. Nobody calls it Rocky I, even though that's what it is, but the whole group of Rocky movies are just that Rocky movies.

Whatever Lucas's original intentions were, the movie was originally released as Star Wars, and only changed later on as Ereth has mentioned, due to the confusion of some fans. So I think it's perfectly fine to refer to Ep IV as Star Wars.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> An edit that drove me crazy.


Oh, I get why they did it, but it bugged me, too.

But the edits that drive me crazy are these:

The first: Remember where Obi-Wan and Luke and the Droids are in the speeder being interrogated about the droids, and Obi-Wan does the "these aren't the Droids you're looking for" speech? Lucas was upset because in the original film, he didn't have enough money to produce a busy city crowd scene, so in the later releases, they jammed in all sorts of extra people with CGI, including _people walking between the camera and the speeder_.

In the original release, there was nothing to get in the way of the audience's view of the action. There was terrific dramatic tension in that scene which isn't there in the later releases. Sure, if you know the running time of the film, it's obvious that they aren't going to get caught right there, etc. but in the moment, you feel the peril. Remember that all the Jedi stuff was new to us back then, as it was to Luke, so we didn't know Obi-Wan was about to be able to misdirect the Stormtroopers. The edit renders the scene as so trivial on an emotional level, you wonder why anybody bothered to waste the time to film it.

The second (worse) edit is in the beginning of Empire, where Luke is trapped in the ice cave, with the creature eating his Tauntaun. In the original release you only hear the creature in the background, and you don't know if Luke will be able to use the Force to free his lightsaber before the creature comes to eat him.

In the later releases, they show the creature eating the Tauntaun. The audience can see that the creature is happily engaged with his meal and not going anywhere anytime soon, so Luke has all the time in the world to get his lightsaber out. Once again, Lucas made the decision to put more special effects in, and completely spoiled the impact that the scene had in its original form.


----------



## TonyTheTiger (Dec 22, 2006)

I seem to have taken a wrong turn somewhere.

Can someone direct me to the BBT thread?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

TonyTheTiger said:


> I seem to have taken a wrong turn somewhere.
> 
> Can someone direct me to the BBT thread?


Welcome to TiVoCommunity! I hope you enjoy it here!


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

murgatroyd said:


> Oh, I get why they did it, but it bugged me, too.
> 
> But the edits that drive me crazy are these:
> 
> ...


Couldn't agree more. I like the additional background stuff when it's background stuff (like speeders flying around the outside of cloud city, seen through a background window). But when it impacts the story, I wish he'd left it out.

Spielberg realized that changing the guns to walkie-talkies in E.T. changed the movie and he appreciates that the film, as released, is movie history, and allows that version to be seen and released on purchasable media. I wish he could talk sense into Lucas.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

busyba said:


> I would conservatively estimate that about 99% of the people who hear someone say "I watched Star Wars last night" would conclude that the person watched Episode IV.
> 
> And those people would be correct in their conclusion roughly 99% of the time.
> 
> The other 1% in those two groups are Sheldon.


And Ereth. 



> Isn't the title of the first movie from the Hunger Games saga simply "The Hunger Games"?


For some reason I was thinking it had another title, too. Ok, Bad Example, but that means it suffers the same problems that "Star Wars" does. How about "Harry Potter", is that a better example?


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Harry Potter is a much better example. And I would absolutely agree that saying "I just watched 'Harry Potter'" absent any context or qualification would be unresolvably ambiguous.

I simply contend that Star Wars is much more like Hunger Games than Harry Potter in that regard.

While saying "I just watched 'Star Wars'" is _technically_ ambiguous, its meaning is still clear for any speaker or listener who isn't deliberately splitting hairs. It's simply a matter of common usage.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Ereth said:


> And Ereth.
> 
> For some reason I was thinking it had another title, too. Ok, Bad Example, but that means it suffers the same problems that "Star Wars" does. How about "Harry Potter", is that a better example?


The difference here is that Harry Potter, was NEVER just Harry Potter. Every one of the books and movies had more to the title. Star Wars was originally released as Star Wars and was continued to be called that for years.


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

busyba said:


> I would conservatively estimate that about 99% of the people who hear someone say "I watched Star Wars last night" would conclude that the person watched Episode IV.


I would disagree with that. The non-geek portion of the population likely don't even know the individual titles, it's just all "Star Wars"

People who saw the original multiple times in theaters are the minority.


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

busyba said:


> I would conservatively estimate that about 99% of the people who hear someone say "I watched Star Wars last night" would conclude that the person watched Episode IV.
> 
> And those people would be correct in their conclusion roughly 99% of the time.


Exactly! Versus how many people would have a clue what you watched if you said, "A New Hope" or "Episode IV" or Episode IV - A New Hope."

Even the theater marquees had "Star Wars."

So I think much less confusion with "Star Wars" for episode IV.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

Ereth said:


> Couldn't agree more. I like the additional background stuff when it's background stuff (like speeders flying around the outside of cloud city, seen through a background window). But when it impacts the story, I wish he'd left it out.
> 
> Spielberg realized that changing the guns to walkie-talkies in E.T. changed the movie and he appreciates that the film, as released, is movie history, and allows that version to be seen and released on purchasable media. I wish he could talk sense into Lucas.


It will probably not be a surprise that "Free Hat" is my second favorite episode of South Park (and the one that made me "get" South Park).

(#1 is "The Return of the Fellowship of the Ring to the Two Towers")


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

zordude said:


> People who saw the original multiple times in theaters are the minority.


That's probably very age dependent.
I did and I am in no way a Star Wars geek- I haven't seen anything post Return of the Jedi and I think I slept through most of that.

I'm just old enough to have been a movie fan with a lot of time to kill in 1977.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Steveknj said:


> The difference here is that Harry Potter, was NEVER just Harry Potter. Every one of the books and movies had more to the title. Star Wars was originally released as Star Wars and was continued to be called that for years.


For exactly 4 years out of the 27 it has been released it did not have an Episode title. 1977-1981. Nobody who saw it after 1981 has ever seen it without an Episode title on it. During those 4 years, you could only have seen it in 1977 or the 1978 re-release. Of the millions of us who DID see it in 1977 and 1978, I think we are a vanishingly small minority.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Ereth said:


> For exactly 4 years out of the 27 it has been released it did not have an Episode title. 1977-1981. Nobody who saw it after 1981 has ever seen it without an Episode title on it.


...and yet almost nobody who saw it after 1981 has ever regularly referred to it by it's episode title.

And not just because "A New Hope" is a stupid title.


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

Ereth said:


> For exactly 4 years out of the 27 it has been released it did not have an Episode title. 1977-1981. Nobody who saw it after 1981 has ever seen it without an Episode title on it. During those 4 years, you could only have seen it in 1977 or the 1978 re-release. Of the millions of us who DID see it in 1977 and 1978, I think we are a vanishingly small minority.


If you're arguing that 1977 movie should be A New Hope, technically you are right. However, most people refer to it as Star Wars. (And by most I don't just mean a mere 51%. It's much greater than that.)

I might say I am going to do a Star Wars marathon to indicate multiple films. I would never say Star Wars to singularly indicate anything but episode IV.

ETA:



busyba said:


> ...And not just because "A New Hope" is a stupid title.


And this.


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

waynomo said:


> I might say I am going to do a Star Wars marathon to indicate multiple films. I would never say Star Wars to singularly indicate anything but episode IV.


I have no problem with this statement, its just that millions of people WOULD say it to indicate other films in my opinion, especially if they are under 40.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

I generally call Ep IV "Star Wars" by default. If I'm talking about V or VI, I say "Empire Strikes Back" or "Return of the Jedi", sometimes prefixed by "Star Wars". If I just make gagging noises, I'm probably talking about I or II.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

I can't even remember what the name of II is.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

Attack of the Clones.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

DreadPirateRob said:


> Attack of the Clones.


I'll never forget the video footage of Ewan McGregor finding out that was the title.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

When we first learned that the next movie would be called "The Empire Strikes Back" we thought it was the dumbest title ever. Nobody would make a movie with such a cliched title, would they?

Well, yes. That was kind of the point. All the titles are intended to evoke 1940s serials. They are all bad. 

Heck, the third movie was entitled "Revenge of the Jedi", and even had promotional posters made up before someone pointed out that "Revenge is not the way of the Jedi" and they had to change them.

"Return of the Jedi" can refer to Anakin, redeeming himself and abandoning the light side due to the love of his child (which kind of goes against the Jedi training that love is bad and should be avoided, doesn't it?), but what on earth could "Revenge of the Jedi" have referred to? Anakin didn't really take revenge, and the only other Jedi in the movie was Luke, who mostly refused to turn to the dark side.

I am personally convinced that Lucas' original vision was far more bare bones than he likes to claim, and that he changed the story as he went along, and that what we got in Episode VI really wasn't where he was headed when he made up those "Revenge of the Jedi" posters.

But look at them in order, and you'll see how they fit the 1940s serial naming scheme.

Episode I: The Phantom Menace
Episode II: The Attack of the Clones
Episode III: Revenge of the Sith
Episode IV: A New Hope
Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back
Episode VI: Return of the Jedi 
Episode VII: The Ancient Fear

When looked at in context, "A New Hope" is actually one of the better titles. Evil has won at the end of Episode III, and the Empire becomes large and powerful, and the galaxy is lost, for a very long time. Finally, a young man arrives who is, quite literally, a new hope, a chance for good, the first one in nearly 20 years.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Ereth said:


> When we first learned that the next movie would be called "The Empire Strikes Back" we thought it was the dumbest title ever.


We? We who? Not me.



> When looked at in context, "A New Hope" is actually one of the better titles.


It's a perfectly fine chapter title. It's a crap movie title.

It's particularly a crappy movie title for a sci-fi action movie. It's better suited for a Lifetime or Oprah TV movie.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

busyba said:


> We? We who? Not me.


Were you around in 1980? There were articles making fun of the stupid name back then.

Much like the new ones, making fun of "An Ancient Fear", the title recently announced for Episode 7. There hasn't been an episode title that I can recall that people didn't make fun of when it was new.

We accept Empire now, because it's been 30 years and we are used to it. But the general consensus back then was "Wait, the rebels had some success, and now the new movie is 'The Empire Strikes Back'? Who titled that, a 4-year old?"



> It's a perfectly fine chapter title. It's a crap movie title.


No worse than "Attack of the Clones" or any of the other titles.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Ereth said:


> Were you around in 1980? There were articles making fun of the stupid name back then.


Yes, I was. I've seen all the movies in their original theatrical releases. I never had a problem with _Empire_'s title, media articles notwithstanding.



> Much like the new ones, making fun of "An Ancient Fear", the title recently announced for Episode 7. There hasn't been an episode title that I can recall that people didn't make fun of when it was new.
> 
> We accept Empire now, because it's been 30 years and we are used to it.


And yet, "A New Hope" is still a crap title, even after 30 years.



> No worse than "Attack of the Clones" or any of the other titles.


No, I'd say ANH is the worst of all the titles.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Ereth said:


> but what on earth could "Revenge of the Jedi" have referred to? Anakin didn't really take revenge, and the only other Jedi in the movie was Luke, who mostly refused to turn to the dark side.


Luke was instrumental in at least two endeavors that could arguably be called vengeful: the mission to rescue Han from Jabba leading to Jabba's death, and the overthrow of the Empire.

And to save us all some time, I will stipulate in advance to your giant wall of text that crits the appropriateness of the term "revenge" for 10,000,000 HP. But that doesn't change the fact that the usage of the term in "revenge" isn't nearly as inexplicable as you seem to think it is.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

busyba said:


> Luke was instrumental in at least two endeavors that could arguably be called vengeful: the mission to rescue Han from Jabba leading to Jabba's death, and the overthrow of the Empire.
> 
> And to save us all some time, I will stipulate in advance to your giant wall of text that crits the appropriateness of the term "revenge" for 10,000,000 HP. But that doesn't change the fact that the usage of the term in "revenge" isn't nearly as inexplicable as you seem to think it is.


I suppose we are talking past one another. The Jedi uses the force for defense, not attack, remember? Revenge isn't consistent with the lessons Yoda was teaching Luke in Empire. Someone pointed that out, and Lucas not only changed the name of the movie, but recalled all the posters and issued new ones. The original posters are now rather valuable collectors items.

If you think he shouldn't have done that, your beef is with Lucas, not me. Or whoever that was that originally pointed out the inconsistency (and why wasn't that person there to stop "midichlorians"!).

As for "A New Hope" you are welcome to your opinion. I disagree with you, but ok, I think we've both said really all there is to be said on that. I accept that you don't like it as a title. Can't help you with that, since that is what the movie has been named since 1981.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Ereth said:


> I suppose we are talking past one another. The Jedi uses the force for defense, not attack, remember? Revenge isn't consistent with the lessons Yoda was teaching Luke in Empire. Someone pointed that out, and Lucas not only changed the name of the movie, but recalled all the posters and issued new ones. The original posters are now rather valuable collectors items.


No, I get all that, and I remember when it happened and it made perfect sense. I'm just addressing your "but what on earth could "Revenge of the Jedi" have referred to" question. I was only pointing out what it was referring to, not arguing that it wasn't an inappropriate choice for all the other reasons.



> As for "A New Hope" you are welcome to your opinion. I disagree with you, but ok, I think we've both said really all there is to be said on that. I accept that you don't like it as a title. Can't help you with that, since that is what the movie has been named since 1981.


And I'm not disputing what it is named, I'm just pointing out that hardly anyone calls it that, not the least reason of which being that it's a title more befitting a Merchant Ivory film.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

busyba said:


> No, I get all that, and I remember when it happened and it made perfect sense. I'm just addressing your "but what on earth could "Revenge of the Jedi" have referred to" question. I was only pointing out what it was referring to, not arguing that it wasn't an inappropriate choice for all the other reasons.


I don't really see either of those events as being about "Revenge", but ok.



> And I'm not disputing what it is named, I'm just pointing out that hardly anyone calls it that, not the least reason of which being that it's a title more befitting a Merchant Ivory film.


I think "The Phantom Menace" is the worst one. It's actually the only movie title I've ever heard of that spoils the plot of the film itself - that there really isn't a menace, it's being faked.

I'm not sure what they should have called it. "Trouble at Nabu" perhaps? "Counselor Palpatine Goes to Coruscant"? "The Boy in the Desert"?


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

You can take back my nerd card for this, but is it a true statement that the clones from the early episodes eventually morphed into what the Stormtroopers are in the later episodes? IOW, are stormtroopers descended from the clones?


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Ereth said:


> I think "The Phantom Menace" is the worst one. It's actually the only movie title I've ever heard of that spoils the plot of the film itself - that there really isn't a menace, it's being faked.
> 
> I'm not sure what they should have called it. "Trouble at Nabu" perhaps? "Counselor Palpatine Goes to Coruscant"? "The Boy in the Desert"?


The Merchandising Strikes Back.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

Ereth said:


> I don't really see either of those events as being about "Revenge", but ok.
> 
> I think "The Phantom Menace" is the worst one. It's actually the only movie title I've ever heard of that spoils the plot of the film itself - that there really isn't a menace, it's being faked.
> 
> I'm not sure what they should have called it. "Trouble at Nabu" perhaps? "Counselor Palpatine Goes to Coruscant"? "The Boy in the Desert"?


"The Terrors of Jar-Jar"?


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Hank said:


> You can take back my nerd card for this, but is it a true statement that the clones from the early episodes eventually morphed into what the Stormtroopers are in the later episodes? IOW, are stormtroopers descended from the clones?


Yes though I don't think that was the original plan.

Leia's comment about "Aren't you a little short to be a Stormtrooper?" when Luke rescues her was taken by most of us to mean there were Stormtrooper standards. But if the Stormtroopers are clones, then they'd all be the exact same height, and Luke would have stood out like a sore thumb to them, and the stormtrooper disguise could never have worked.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

Hank said:


> You can take back my nerd card for this, but is it a true statement that the clones from the early episodes eventually morphed into what the Stormtroopers are in the later episodes? IOW, are stormtroopers descended from the clones?


My understanding is that they're either descended from the clones, or they ARE the clones (the reason they suck in combat is because they're older than Obi-Wan  )


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

Ereth said:


> Yes though I don't think that was the original plan.
> 
> Leia's comment about "Aren't you a little short to be a Stormtrooper?" when Luke rescues her was taken by most of us to mean there were Stormtrooper standards. But if the Stormtroopers are clones, then they'd all be the exact same height, and Luke would have stood out like a sore thumb to them, and the stormtrooper disguise could never have worked.


That's why I said "descended from" and not actual clones. I think after a generation or two, there could be some mutations in height.

And no, I don't know where the female clones are coming from.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Hank said:


> That's why I said "descended from" and not actual clones. I think after a generation or two, there could be some mutations in height.
> 
> And no, I don't know where the female clones are coming from.


Changing the chromosome would be easy, but would be rather pointless. If your enterprise involves continually replacing clones with other clones, you don't need females. Since their entire existence is combat, why bother to make female stormtroopers? They won't reproduce, they won't nurture, what benefit do they bring? Surely the Empire isn't worried about Political Correctness?


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

Of course they are clones in EP4, that is why they bump their head on doors, just like Jango Fett


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Ereth said:


> Episode I: The Phantom Menace
> Episode II: The Attack of the Clones
> Episode III: Revenge of the Sith
> Episode IV: A New Hope
> ...


Isn't the Ancient Fear just a rumor at this point? Similar to the rumored title of episode III being "The Creeping Fear"

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/17252


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

TonyTheTiger said:


> I seem to have taken a wrong turn somewhere.
> 
> Can someone direct me to the BBT thread?


BBT threads frequently veer well off course. Combine that proclivity with an episode based on Star Wars and it's like the perfect storm.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Ereth said:


> Since their entire existence is combat, why bother to make female stormtroopers?


Morale.


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

Azlen said:


> BBT threads frequently veer well off course. Combine that proclivity with an episode based on Star Wars and it's like the perfect storm.


I didn't realize it was just BBT threads. I'll have to be more call in other TCF places.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

waynomo said:


> I didn't realize it was just BBT threads. I'll have to be more call in other TCF places.


It happens in other threads as well, it just always happens with BBT threads.


----------



## jamesl (Jul 12, 2012)

I assume everyone here has seen RedLetterMedia's 7 part review of The Phantom Menace 





it is a very good review, he makes very good points

however the style isn't for everyone 
he curses a LOT
and he does a "character" 
I think its funny, but sometimes he goes overboard


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

This thread is a hoot!!


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Ereth said:


> Back then, he said there were 12 stories, but over time that reduced to 9.


I've always thought it was originally 12 too. But where was that stated?

wikipedia has:
Interviewed in 2012 after the announcement of the new trilogy, Lucas biographer Dale Pollock said that he had, in the 1980s, read the outlines to 12 Star Wars episodes planned by Lucas, but had been required to sign a confidentiality agreement.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

mattack said:


> I've always thought it was originally 12 too. But where was that stated?


I read it in Starlog.


----------



## Agatha Mystery (Feb 12, 2002)

Is it wrong that I miss the conversations about Penny being a drunk, fat hobo?


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

She was in the Cantina scene, getting drunk.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

Agatha Mystery said:


> Is it wrong that I miss the conversations about Penny being a drunk, fat hobo?


That's "felonious hobo" to you.


----------



## MikeCC (Jun 19, 2004)

Azlen said:


> BBT threads frequently veer well off course. Combine that proclivity with an episode based on Star Wars and it's like the perfect storm.


_Veer _off course?? This thread has taken the off ramp and is speeding down a totally different expressway now.

The meandering discussion of "machete order" lead to pages of non-germane minutia on which Star Wars movie title was the most stupid.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

This thread is tame compared to some BBT thread diversions. We're still under 200 posts!


----------



## lalouque (Feb 11, 2002)

busyba said:


> I would conservatively estimate that about 99% of the people who hear someone say "I watched Star Wars last night" would conclude that the person watched Episode IV.
> 
> And those people would be correct in their conclusion roughly 99% of the time.
> 
> The other 1% in those two groups are Sheldon.


I have to disagree. I had a friend on Sunday say he was watching Star Wars with his daughters and I asked him if he meant Episode IV or the whole series.


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

lalouque said:


> I have to disagree. I had a friend on Sunday say he was watching Star Wars with his daughters and I asked him if he meant Episode IV or the whole series.


Yes, but which did he mean? I would bet he meant ANH.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

MikeCC said:


> _Veer _off course?? This thread has taken the off ramp and is speeding down a totally different expressway now.
> 
> The meandering discussion of "machete order" lead to pages of non-germane minutia on which Star Wars movie title was the most stupid.


Perhaps there should be a poll?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Just throwing in my $0.02: The first movie was referred to as Star Wars, regardless of what Lucas added to the crawl for the 1981 re-release. It wasn't until Episode I was released and the term Star Wars started to encompass a much larger universe that people started needing to clarify what they meant when they said Star Wars and were meaning Episode IV. 

And I've never heard anyone refer to the movie solely as "A New Hope." It's always Star Wars or Episode IV or Star Wars: Episode IV.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> Just throwing in my $0.02: The first movie was referred to as Star Wars, regardless of what Lucas added to the crawl for the 1981 re-release. It wasn't until Episode I was released and the term Star Wars started to encompass a much larger universe that people started needing to clarify what they meant when they said Star Wars and were meaning Episode IV.
> 
> And I've never heard anyone refer to the movie solely as "A New Hope." It's always Star Wars or Episode IV or Star Wars: Episode IV.


You mean Episode V, right? not I? Because Episode V is fully titled Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back. That was in 1980.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Ereth said:


> You mean Episode V, right? not I? Because Episode V is fully titled Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back. That was in 1980.


No, I mean Episode I. I'm aware that the official titles of Empire and Jedi included episode numbers, but for all intents and purposes, up until 1999, there were three movies: Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi. It wasn't until Episode I came out that people started actually using the episode numbers to refer to the films, and that was largely only because it became necessary to avoid confusion in discussing chronology and movie order.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> It wasn't until Episode I came out that normal people started actually using the episode numbers to refer to the films, as opposed to pedantic geeks, and that was largely only because it became necessary to avoid confusion in discussing chronology and movie order.


FYP. 

Rob Helmerichs, Pedantic Geek


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> FYP.
> 
> Rob Helmerichs, Pedantic Geek


Didn't you mean "mundanes?" (At least I think that's what betts4 referred to them as.)

ETA: And when I say "them" I mean me. 

ETA2: Just read betts4 description below. I guess not me because I do enjoy all that. I'm just not a fanatic about it like some here.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

waynomo said:


> Didn't you mean "mundanes?" (At least I think that's what betts4 referred to them as.)


 Yes, mundanes. Those that don't read/watch or desire to enjoy science fiction and the possiblities it awakes. My boss is a mundane. Uber mundane. I don't use it as a derogatory, nothing wrong with being a mundane, but more just as a type.

If you can at least discuss the Star Wars vs IV vs New Hope - you are not a mundane.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mundane


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> No, I mean Episode I. I'm aware that the official titles of Empire and Jedi included episode numbers, but for all intents and purposes, up until 1999, there were three movies: Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi. It wasn't until Episode I came out that people started actually using the episode numbers to refer to the films, and that was largely only because it became necessary to avoid confusion in discussing chronology and movie order.


But you said Star Wars didn't refer to a larger saga until Episode I. I disagree vehemently. The Expanded Universe consists of quite a lot of really good Star Wars sagas, and they came out before Episode I. There were Star Wars novels, Star Wars comic books, and multiple movies, all under the umbrella term of "Star Wars".

I do find it interesting that the common man refers to the first three films by their titles, generally, but almost never refers to any of the prequels by their titles, but only by episode numbers.

(And for the record, many of us think that the absolute Best Star Wars came in novel form, from Timothy Zahn).


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Ereth said:


> (And for the record, many of us think that the absolute Best Star Wars came in novel form, from Timothy Zahn).


It's weird to think that Mara Jade won't be married to Luke in the upcoming films.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Ereth said:


> But you said Star Wars didn't refer to a larger saga until Episode I. I disagree vehemently. The Expanded Universe consists of quite a lot of really good Star Wars sagas, and they came out before Episode I. There were Star Wars novels, Star Wars comic books, and multiple movies, all under the umbrella term of "Star Wars".
> 
> I do find it interesting that the common man refers to the first three films by their titles, generally, but almost never refers to any of the prequels by their titles, but only by episode numbers.
> 
> (And for the record, many of us think that the absolute Best Star Wars came in novel form, from Timothy Zahn).


Again, I realize that there were lots of other things under the umbrella of "Star Wars" prior to Episode I. But for the vast majority of people who loved the movies, the movies is the only real exposure they ever had to the universe, and the first three movies were known as Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi. Prior to 1999, if you had said you were going to watch Star Wars, nobody would have asked "which one?" They might have said, "Are you going to watch all three?" or "Are you going to do a marathon?" but nobody would have wondered which movie you were talking about if you mentioned Star Wars anytime between 1977 and 1999.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Azlen said:


> It's weird to think that Mara Jade won't be married to Luke in the upcoming films.


Don't assume. While the announcement that the continuity is redone means it is not assured they get married but it doesn't mean they won't adapt some of the book materials.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> Again, I realize that there were lots of other things under the umbrella of "Star Wars" prior to Episode I. But for the vast majority of people who loved the movies, the movies is the only real exposure they ever had to the universe, and the first three movies were known as Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi. Prior to 1999, if you had said you were going to watch Star Wars, nobody would have asked "which one?" They might have said, "Are you going to watch all three?" or "Are you going to do a marathon?" but nobody would have wondered which movie you were talking about if you mentioned Star Wars anytime between 1977 and 1999.


Truth, this one speaks.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> Again, I realize that there were lots of other things under the umbrella of "Star Wars" prior to Episode I. But for the vast majority of people who loved the movies, the movies is the only real exposure they ever had to the universe, and the first three movies were known as Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi. Prior to 1999, if you had said you were going to watch Star Wars, nobody would have asked "which one?" They might have said, "Are you going to watch all three?" or "Are you going to do a marathon?" but nobody would have wondered which movie you were talking about if you mentioned Star Wars anytime between 1977 and 1999.


So what you are saying is that it took until 1999 for the mundanes to get to where the geeks were in 1981? And that this is somehow a good thing?

Clearly we hang out with different groups. My friends didn't have to wait for Episode I to know that Star Wars referred to more than just the first movie. My friends didn't have to wait for Episode I to refer to them by episode numbers.

I know. I'm being Sheldon here. But there is truth in Sheldon. There were an awful lot of us who treated Episode IV, V and VI as exactly that, long before Episode I was even announced. And we consider ourselves more serious fans than those casual viewers who just know the three movies by the names you mentioned. (and in that group, I might add, I'm a bit of a piker. These people take this stuff SERIOUSLY, and I felt like an amateur at Star Wars Celebration, though not quite a mundane).


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> No, I mean Episode I. I'm aware that the official titles of Empire and Jedi included episode numbers, but for all intents and purposes, up until 1999, there were three movies: Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi. It wasn't until Episode I came out that people started actually using the episode numbers to refer to the films, and that was largely only because it became necessary to avoid confusion in discussing chronology and movie order.


+1

I had no idea there were episode numbers until I came out at which point I, and the rest of the mundanes, said a collective "WTF??"


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

Robin said:


> +1
> 
> I had no idea there were episode numbers until I came out at which point I, and the rest of the mundanes, said a collective "WTF??"


I didn't know you were gay and I'm not sure why it's relevant.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Ereth said:


> So what you are saying is that it took until 1999 for the mundanes to get to where the geeks were in 1981? And that this is somehow a good thing?
> 
> Clearly we hang out with different groups. My friends didn't have to wait for Episode I to know that Star Wars referred to more than just the first movie. My friends didn't have to wait for Episode I to refer to them by episode numbers.
> 
> I know. I'm being Sheldon here. But there is truth in Sheldon. There were an awful lot of us who treated Episode IV, V and VI as exactly that, long before Episode I was even announced. And we consider ourselves more serious fans than those casual viewers who just know the three movies by the names you mentioned. (and in that group, I might add, I'm a bit of a piker. These people take this stuff SERIOUSLY, and I felt like an amateur at Star Wars Celebration, though not quite a mundane).


If we're defining "mundanes" as people who are not interested in sci-fi, then that's definitely not me. I loved Star Wars when it was first released. I had dozens of Star Wars figures and other toys and spent many hours with my friends playing Star Wars. I was never into the novels or the conventions or any of that stuff, but I wouldn't say that because I only enjoyed the Star Wars movies, that I'm a mundane. And I knew that ESB was Episode V and that RotJ was Episode VI when they were released. I'm simply saying that neither I, nor anyone I knew, referred to them by the episode numbers.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Yep. I was a huge Star Wars fan when it came out. I made my grandparents take me to see it because they happened to be babysitting me and my sisters when it came out. A few years later the sequel comes out, and it was released as just "The Empire Strikes Back" - here's the theatrical poster:








While the rereleases added the "Star Wars" prefix to Episode V, and "A New Hope" to Episode IV, most people I knew of back then knew Star Wars generally meant the first one, and Empire referred to the sequel.

Same for Episode VI... I recall it being referred to mostly as "Jedi", or "Return of the Jedi".


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

BrettStah said:


> Yep. I was a huge Star Wars fan when it came out. I made my grandparents take me to see it because they happened to be babysitting me and my sisters when it came out. A few years later the sequel comes out, and it was released as just "The Empire Strikes Back" - here's the theatrical poster:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


THIS!!!!

I don't think it was until Return of the Jedi that we started calling it by the numbers and then only once in awhile.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

The thing is, we all KNEW that IV, V, and VI were part of a trilogy of Nine (once twelve) but we didn't count them like that. I didn't say episode V. I said Empire Strikes Back.

Heck, I still don't. But for the first three, yep, I do say I, II and III.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

DevdogAZ said:


> If we're defining "mundanes" as people who are not interested in sci-fi, then that's definitely not me. I loved Star Wars when it was first released. I had dozens of Star Wars figures and other toys and spent many hours with my friends playing Star Wars. I was never into the novels or the conventions or any of that stuff, but I wouldn't say that because I only enjoyed the Star Wars movies, that I'm a mundane. And I knew that ESB was Episode V and that RotJ was Episode VI when they were released. I'm simply saying that neither I, nor anyone I knew, referred to them by the episode numbers.


You aren't a mundane. You may not be a fan to the level that some of us are. Conventions, collecting, etc, but you enjoy the movies, can hold an intelligent conversation about the plots, characters etc and owned action figures. And Star Wars does not a fan make. You may not like Star Wars but be into Battlestar Galactica or something else science fictionie related. At least you are understanding of those of us that are and don't roll your eyes when the subject is brought up.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

betts4 said:


> The thing is, we all KNEW that IV, V, and VI were part of a trilogy of Nine (once twelve) but we didn't count them like that. I didn't say episode V. I said Empire Strikes Back. Heck, I still don't. But for the first three, yep, I do say I, II and III.


The Epsiode II picture is the Senator in Baltimore. Great place to watch Star Wars. And the series, too.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

TonyD79 said:


> The Epsiode II picture is the Senator in Baltimore. Great place to watch Star Wars. And the series, too.


LOL I was in that line.










Me, with my friend Thomas.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

betts4 said:


> LOL I was in that line. Me, with my friend Thomas.


Cool. Didn't realize we were local to each other.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

TonyD79 said:


> Cool. Didn't realize we were local to each other.


Yes, I'm in Bawlmore, near Hampden. Not born and bred here, but stuck here.


----------



## ct1 (Jun 27, 2003)

I saw it at the Senator too... (Not dressed up though -- I'm a mundane (well, with respect to Star Wars anyway.))

(ETA: I was indeed born in Bawlmore.)


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Tony, did you see it at the Senator when they did all Star Wars, Empire and Jedi all in one day marathon style? That was awesome.


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

betts4 said:


> LOL I was in that line.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Betts4: definitely not a mundane!


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

ct1 said:


> I saw it at the Senator too... (Not dressed up though -- I'm a mundane (well, with respect to Star Wars anyway.))
> 
> (ETA: I was indeed born in Bawlmore.)


:up: I saw it there a few times while it was there (well all three). I may have met you in line and not known it!!


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

Not the Senator, but I saw the prequels at the Uptown in DC.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Turtleboy said:


> Not the Senator, but I saw the prequels at the Uptown in DC.


That's a nice one too! The big screen. The seating. The feeling that you are really in a movie theatre. That makes a difference.


----------



## ct1 (Jun 27, 2003)

betts4 said:


> :up: I saw it there a few times while it was there (well all three). I may have met you in line and not known it!!


We saw all three there. I liked the Senator, a better behaved more serious audience than the typical multi-plex in general..


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

betts4 said:


> Tony, did you see it at the Senator when they did all Star Wars, Empire and Jedi all in one day marathon style? That was awesome.


My wife and I (pre-kids of course) went to a marathon in Boston in the 90's... I think the theater was in Cleveland Circle but I can't remember. It was fun, but... I wouldn't do it again. A little too much for me, to be honest.

However my son had a birthday party (sleepover) where he wanted to watch all three, and did. Although the third was watched the next day and some of the guests had left already.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

betts4 said:


> Tony, did you see it at the Senator when they did all Star Wars, Empire and Jedi all in one day marathon style? That was awesome.


Yes. I was there. Also when they did one each Saturday for three Saturdays.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

betts4 said:


> Yes, I'm in Bawlmore, near Hampden. Not born and bred here, but stuck here.


I grew up in Pennsylvania. Moved to maryland in 79 after college. Cockeysville then Columbia.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

Turtleboy said:


> I didn't know you were gay and I'm not sure why it's relevant.


I'm an enigma.


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

Robin said:


> I'm an enigma.


But we love and support your choice anyway.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zWNJHS9PBE[/media]


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

And some outtakes, too!





[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-fYFYoQUL4[/media]


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Showed Star Wars (Episode IV to be specific) to my young son for the first time the other day. One of his first comments was that the characters were from the Angry Birds game he's played. It was real face palm moment.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

BrettStah said:


> Yep. I was a huge Star Wars fan when it came out. I made my grandparents take me to see it because they happened to be babysitting me and my sisters when it came out. A few years later the sequel comes out, and it was released as just "The Empire Strikes Back" - here's the theatrical poster:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You don't see the words "Star Wars" wrapped around the Empire Strikes Back logo?


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> If we're defining "mundanes" as people who are not interested in sci-fi, then that's definitely not me.


Every single fandom group has it's own set of mundanes. Or muggles. Or whatever word you want. I'm a Muggle for Harry Potter. You are a mundane for Xanth (I would wager). These days, I'm closer to a mundane in Star Wars than I used to be, as I stopped reading the Extended Universe and never watched a single episode of Clone Wars. I'm certain I've crossed the line into mundanehood for at least some Star Wars fandom groups. It's not meant as an insult, it's simply a reflection of interest and dedication.



> I'm simply saying that neither I, nor anyone I knew, referred to them by the episode numbers.


And I'm saying that many of my friends did. (Not all. Some of those who didn't were annoyed at those of us who did). So what do these anecdotal stories tell us? Only that we have different groups of friends, different interests, and different levels of geekdom.

There was a point, in the late 1970s, where I could recite the first film word for word, beginning to end. (I can't do it any more). That puts me in a different level of geekdom than you and your friends. That's all.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Ereth said:


> Every single fandom group has it's own set of mundanes. Or muggles. Or whatever word you want. I'm a Muggle for Harry Potter. You are a mundane for Xanth (I would wager). These days, I'm closer to a mundane in Star Wars than I used to be, as I stopped reading the Extended Universe and never watched a single episode of Clone Wars. I'm certain I've crossed the line into mundanehood for at least some Star Wars fandom groups. It's not meant as an insult, it's simply a reflection of interest and dedication.


If we're defining "mundane" as simply one who is not completely immersed in any given sci-fi world, then I'm most definitely a mundane. I enjoy watching certain sci-fi things, but I'm not fanatic about any of them. I never collected any memorabilia, went to cons, or read any novels or comics. And I don't consider that an insult. I just wanted to make sure how you were defining that term. This thread is the first time I've heard it, and before your post, the only definition given was by betts4 who said it was someone who wasn't interested at all in sci-fi.



Ereth said:


> There was a point, in the late 1970s, where I could recite the first film word for word, beginning to end. (I can't do it any more). That puts me in a different level of geekdom than you and your friends. That's all.


During the early 80s, I also could quote Star Wars word for word. We had it on VHS and I probably watched it 100+ times. But I was born in 72, so that was from the time I was 8 until I was 13-14. I was too young for cons (wasn't even aware there were such things at the time) and I played with the toys I had rather than leaving them in the package and hoping for their value to increase. By the time I was in high school, Star Wars was a interest from my youth and not something that I maintained an active interest in. I saw each of the prequels in the theater, but didn't really enjoy any of them and that's the only time I've seen any of them. I've owned the original trilogy on both VHS and DVD, and I'm not sure I've ever played any of them.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Ereth said:


> You don't see the words "Star Wars" wrapped around the Empire Strikes Back logo?


Oh sure... it's definitely there - and across the top of the poster is says the "Star Wars Saga Continues". It just was more heavily/prominently promoted, IMHO, as "The Empire Strikes Backs", and not as "Episode V". Look as how Episode I's poster contrasts with it:


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Ereth said:


> You don't see the words "Star Wars" wrapped around the Empire Strikes Back logo?


But not Star Wars Episode VI

That's the difference.

I actually spoke to 4 of my 'Star Wars' friends yesterday. Two couples, but not at the same time. One was in the morning and about ten years younger than I - so they saw the movies at age 8, and 10.

They agreed, none of this Episode IV or New Hope or episode V - it was simply, Star Wars, Empire and Jedi.

The second couple was my age, saw the movies at age 17 and 19. We talked at Burger King for awhile about this and their son who is also a fan but of the newer stuff - the Clone Wars animated and the video games got into it. I have not been interested in the animated or the books or expanded universe as many are. The movies did it for me.

Or this.



BrettStah said:


> Oh sure... it's definitely there - and across the top of the poster is says the "Star Wars Saga Continues". It just was more heavily/prominently promoted, IMHO, as "The Empire Strikes Backs", and not as "Episode V". Look as how Episode I's poster contrasts with it:


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

FWIW, I started rewatching this week. I started with IV and then V. I just finished a debate with myself on watching I next or doing the full machete and skipping to II. 

I've decided: IV, V, I, II, III, VI

I don't have complete distaste for I that many have. Plays better in a sweep of the movies than it did when it was by itself in the theaters. That, and I have low expectations for it anyway.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

This is a great article about the Machete order. Well actually about all the ways to view the movies.

http://www.nomachetejuggling.com/2011/11/11/the-star-wars-saga-suggested-viewing-order/


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

betts4 said:


> This is a great article about the Machete order. Well actually about all the ways to view the movies. http://www.nomachetejuggling.com/2011/11/11/the-star-wars-saga-suggested-viewing-order/


Yes it is. I used it in my decision making process. I decided it missed the mark on a few items in episode I but it provided a lot of information.


----------

