Could be worse Knasseril, it could have been flibbitygibbets.

Or Slartibartfast, I suppose. :)True story for those who don't know. The novels (and later film) The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy were originally BBC radio plays. The author, Douglas Adams, had a falling out with the typist at the BBC and so named one of his characters Slartibartfast purely because it was horrendous to have to type repeatedly. Note that for page after page, the character's name is never mentioned in-dialogue by another character, it's just there as part of the script so it has to be typed. Eventually, near the very end of that character's arc in the story, he is asked his name by another character and gives it to which the other character expresses incredulity. Slartibartfast replies that his name is "not important."It was a direct jab at the BBC typist to reveal that after pages and pages of having to type this blasted name, the character explicitly stated that their name was unimportant. Douglas Adams could be mean .

I really enjoy hitchhikers and never knew that was why I did find the name funny though. Although the best bit is still the whale.

I really enjoy hitchhikers and never knew that was why I did find the name funny though. Although the best bit is still the whale.

It is a maddeningly uneven series. The first one is an untouchable masterpiece of the ages. The second one is pretty **** good. The third one was not bad, but not great. The fourth one was a chore to get through. Five was "No, please, Douglas - just stop." - and I never did read that one that was written from his notes after he died.

Mind you, he was going through some pretty dark times there towards the end, but still the drop-off in quality is shocking.

I really enjoy hitchhikers and never knew that was why I did find the name funny though. Although the best bit is still the whale.

It is a maddeningly uneven series. The first one is an untouchable masterpiece of the ages. The second one is pretty **** good. The third one was not bad, but not great. The fourth one was a chore to get through. Five was "No, please, Douglas - just stop." - and I never did read that one that was written from his notes after he died.

Mind you, he was going through some pretty dark times there towards the end, but still the drop-off in quality is shocking.

Yet still not as fast a a transformers movie.

Personally I just think of the first three books that I fell in love with when I think of Hitchhiker's Guide. That and the radio show and the 80s TV series.

I didn't care for any of the books past the third and I just don't even think of the movie at all.

Could be worse Knasseril, it could have been flibbitygibbets.

Or Slartibartfast, I suppose.

True story for those who don't know. The novels (and later film) The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy were originally BBC radio plays. The author, Douglas Adams, had a falling out with the typist at the BBC and so named one of his characters Slartibartfast purely because it was horrendous to have to type repeatedly. Note that for page after page, the character's name is never mentioned in-dialogue by another character, it's just there as part of the script so it has to be typed. Eventually, near the very end of that character's arc in the story, he is asked his name by another character and gives it to which the other character expresses incredulity. Slartibartfast replies that his name is "not important."

It was a direct jab at the BBC typist to reveal that after pages and pages of having to type this blasted name, the character explicitly stated that their name was unimportant. Douglas Adams could be mean .

Puts a new, sinister spin on Vogon poetry, too.

And it makes me wonder who my parents hated when they made my middle name Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis tina.

BTW, Flibbetygibbets and Slartibartfast (and Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis tina) are even better when you use text-to-speech.

(I didn't post this on the F&D Beta boards, since the topic seemed to pertain to all SW, but I might be wrong.)

There seems to be a tacit consensus that midi-chlorians were a huge mistake on the part of George Lucas, usually listed next to Jar Jar Binks in a list of stuff the prequels ruined.

I'll admit that I grew up on the prequels, and despite the fact even my young artistically-challenged self could see the bad acting and lackluster rythm of the likes of AotC, I can't resist enjoying them. In fact, looking back, the senate/political scenes and Padme arcs are something I prefer in the prequels to the scarcity of scenes showing the Rebel Alliance command.

But I disgress. Since I grew up always "aware" of midi-chlorians, I never felt their introduction to canon was removing the magic / mystique / mystery / spirituality of the Force. Maybe it's just me, but the fact that living creatures similar to mitochondria played a "relay" role between the Force and living beings never seemed out of place. On the contrary I found the "whole living beings within living beings" to be quite full of taste.

I've read in a few places that midi-chlorians brought too much of a Hard SF feel to the more romantic/fantasy Star Wars world. In my experience of old pulp SF novels, the lines were not always so clear cut, and technobabble was often a mean to raise philosophical/ethical questions, advance a particular storyline or stimulate the imagination; not necessarily have a "science talk".

I'm curious to hear other people's take on the matter, especially of those who have either downplayed their role in their games, eliminated them completely, or else. Unless I'm mistaken, there is (almost?) no mention of them in the FFG books, which can be understandable in the context of the Galactic Civil War.

There is zero mystery and magic when you reduce aptitude for something to a blood test. It was a dumb idea.

The blood test only shows potential ability. Aptitude comes through training and focus.

The blood test only shows potential ability. Aptitude comes through training and focus.

I think this got buried in the thread but I'm of the opinion that Midi's don't affect or cause the Force but are actually "things" (Parasites?) that are attracted to the Force in living creatures. If you go this way then you can remove a lot of what people find disappointing about them.

Midi's don't affect or cause the Force but are actually "things" (Parasites?) that are attracted to the Force in living creatures.

I think the intent is less parasites and more symbiotes. My understanding is that they are basically mitochondria, so "stuff in our cells that isn't us," except they help in sensing the force rather than producing ATP.

I really enjoy hitchhikers and never knew that was why I did find the name funny though. Although the best bit is still the whale.

It is a maddeningly uneven series. The first one is an untouchable masterpiece of the ages. The second one is pretty **** good. The third one was not bad, but not great. The fourth one was a chore to get through. Five was "No, please, Douglas - just stop." - and I never did read that one that was written from his notes after he died.

Mind you, he was going through some pretty dark times there towards the end, but still the drop-off in quality is shocking.

The third and fourth books of the series are my favourite ones. The third one (Life, the Universe and Everything) is the first one that has a proper plot. The fourth one (So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish) has more emotion and humanity than the first two as well. The fifth was miserable and best avoided, written only to get publishers off his back and it shows a lot.

Could be worse Knasseril, it could have been flibbitygibbets.

Or Slartibartfast, I suppose.

True story for those who don't know. The novels (and later film) The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy were originally BBC radio plays. The author, Douglas Adams, had a falling out with the typist at the BBC and so named one of his characters Slartibartfast purely because it was horrendous to have to type repeatedly. Note that for page after page, the character's name is never mentioned in-dialogue by another character, it's just there as part of the script so it has to be typed. Eventually, near the very end of that character's arc in the story, he is asked his name by another character and gives it to which the other character expresses incredulity. Slartibartfast replies that his name is "not important."

It was a direct jab at the BBC typist to reveal that after pages and pages of having to type this blasted name, the character explicitly stated that their name was unimportant. Douglas Adams could be mean .

Puts a new, sinister spin on Vogon poetry, too.

And it makes me wonder who my parents hated when they made my middle name Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosistina.

I'm guessing the priest at your wedding. Or maybe the registrar at the births office. I tell you this, though - they've given you one Hell of an in-built protection against Identity Theft.

Could be worse Knasseril, it could have been flibbitygibbets.

Or Slartibartfast, I suppose. :)True story for those who don't know. The novels (and later film) The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy were originally BBC radio plays. The author, Douglas Adams, had a falling out with the typist at the BBC and so named one of his characters Slartibartfast purely because it was horrendous to have to type repeatedly. Note that for page after page, the character's name is never mentioned in-dialogue by another character, it's just there as part of the script so it has to be typed. Eventually, near the very end of that character's arc in the story, he is asked his name by another character and gives it to which the other character expresses incredulity. Slartibartfast replies that his name is "not important."It was a direct jab at the BBC typist to reveal that after pages and pages of having to type this blasted name, the character explicitly stated that their name was unimportant. Douglas Adams could be mean .

I really enjoy hitchhikers and never knew that was why I did find the name funny though. Although the best bit is still the whale.

Yup, I'm a Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy fan

I think this got buried in the thread but I'm of the opinion that Midi's don't affect or cause the Force but are actually "things" (Parasites?) that are attracted to the Force in living creatures. If you go this way then you can remove a lot of what people find disappointing about them.

I mentioned this in the other thread, the last time the Midis came up. I've always been of the belief that someone who is strong in the force has lots of Midichlorians, not someone with lots of Midichlorians means that your strong in the Force. People who come from Africa have darker skin (because of exposure to the UV), not necessarily that people with dark skin come from Africa.

Midi's don't affect or cause the Force but are actually "things" (Parasites?) that are attracted to the Force in living creatures.

I think the intent is less parasites and more symbiotes. My understanding is that they are basically mitochondria, so "stuff in our cells that isn't us," except they help in sensing the force rather than producing ATP.

It's worth noting that in TPM, Qui-gon only mentions them as telling you the will of the force, and that they themselves are connected to the force. (force sensitive microbe). So really, they're not stated to be much more than mini-wizard-advisors. Strange, but they don't generate the force, by any means, nor does he specifically say that high counts create stronger jedi - just that Yoda has a high count, and that the prophecy indicated someone with an astronomical count would "bring balance to the force" which, given it's a prophecy, could just be a way to identify Anikin, not the reason why he can do he does any more then "the boy from under the desert suns" would suggest the desert was what made him powerful.

Ref:

"Midi-chlorians are a microcopic lifeform that reside within all living cells and communicates with the Force."

"They continually speak to you, telling you the will of the Force."

I'll admit that I grew up on the prequels, and despite the fact even my young artistically-challenged self could see the bad acting and lackluster rythm of the likes of AotC, I can't resist enjoying them. In fact, looking back, the senate/political scenes and Padme arcs are something I prefer in the prequels to the scarcity of scenes showing the Rebel Alliance command.

As a 41yr old who grew up on the OT, I would much rather spend time discussing Star Wars with you than many of my peers...

The OT had sh*tty acting, stunted dialog, etc too... People can't remember that these are (and have always been) films for children. And they're ALL wonderful.

Are the prequels flawed? Certainly - So is the OT. I would change things in all six movies were it mine to change... But I love them all the same.

I'll admit that I grew up on the prequels, and despite the fact even my young artistically-challenged self could see the bad acting and lackluster rythm of the likes of AotC, I can't resist enjoying them. In fact, looking back, the senate/political scenes and Padme arcs are something I prefer in the prequels to the scarcity of scenes showing the Rebel Alliance command.

As a 41yr old who grew up on the OT, I would much rather spend time discussing Star Wars with you than many of my peers...

The OT had sh*tty acting, stunted dialog, etc too... People can't remember that these are (and have always been) films for children. And they're ALL wonderful.

Are the prequels flawed? Certainly - So is the OT. I would change things in all six movies were it mine to change... But I love them all the same.

Check out the reviews in my signature below, they outline in a humorous but spot on way why the prequels fail and how the original films succeed despite some poor acting and such. They're entertaining as well.

Are the prequels flawed? Certainly - So is the OT. I would change things in all six movies were it mine to change... But I love them all the same.

That's the thing - if people take off the rose colored glasses of Nostalgia, E4-6 has many of the same problems as 1-3. Acting? Aside from Gunness and Cushing, most everyone was asleep at the switch, coked out of their mind or just terrible. I have mad love for Mark, but man he did himself no favors at times.

Also this might come as a shock to folks, but Empire was not well received or review at the time of release. Oh sure, people came around, but there was a lot of hate leveled at the flick at first.

Are there problems with 1-3? Of course. But I think that they are not nearly as bad as some folks make them out to be.

Also this might come as a shock to folks, but Empire was not well received or review at the time of release.

E6 is the worst of all six, imho. Badly done puppets, droid torture (makes no sense), and...Ewoks. Compared to Ewoks, Jar-Jar is a godsend. It has its high points, certainly, but not enough to rise past #2. Quality order: 5, 4/3, 1, 2, 6

Although I would argue that the emotional payoff of the Vader story arc saves the movie. Plus, even 30 years on, no fighter combat scene - not the new episodes, not ID4, not anything in the modern era of movies - has beaten the Starfighter furball over Endor.

Are the prequels flawed? Certainly - So is the OT. I would change things in all six movies were it mine to change... But I love them all the same.

That's the thing - if people take off the rose colored glasses of Nostalgia, E4-6 has many of the same problems as 1-3. Acting? Aside from Gunness and Cushing, most everyone was asleep at the switch, coked out of their mind or just terrible. I have mad love for Mark, but man he did himself no favors at times.

Also this might come as a shock to folks, but Empire was not well received or review at the time of release. Oh sure, people came around, but there was a lot of hate leveled at the flick at first.

Are there problems with 1-3? Of course. But I think that they are not nearly as bad as some folks make them out to be.

Yes they are.

Star Wars and the OT launched Harrison Ford's meteoric rise, Natalie Portman was just recently interviewed that the PT nearly ended hers in its infancy. Those are opinions of people who act in movies and the decisions made by people who produce movies, made in the context of both when the films came out, and looking back. Not the opinions of anonymous fans on forums. Really pretty much the end of the conversation in my mind.

Are the prequels flawed? Certainly - So is the OT. I would change things in all six movies were it mine to change... But I love them all the same.

That's the thing - if people take off the rose colored glasses of Nostalgia, E4-6 has many of the same problems as 1-3. Acting? Aside from Gunness and Cushing, most everyone was asleep at the switch, coked out of their mind or just terrible. I have mad love for Mark, but man he did himself no favors at times.

Also this might come as a shock to folks, but Empire was not well received or review at the time of release. Oh sure, people came around, but there was a lot of hate leveled at the flick at first.

Are there problems with 1-3? Of course. But I think that they are not nearly as bad as some folks make them out to be.

Yes they are.

Star Wars and the OT launched Harrison Ford's meteoric rise, Natalie Portman was just recently interviewed that the PT nearly ended hers in its infancy. Those are opinions of people who act in movies and the decisions made by people who produce movies, made in the context of both when the films came out, and looking back. Not the opinions of anonymous fans on forums. Really pretty much the end of the conversation in my mind.

Are the prequels flawed? Certainly - So is the OT. I would change things in all six movies were it mine to change... But I love them all the same.

That's the thing - if people take off the rose colored glasses of Nostalgia, E4-6 has many of the same problems as 1-3. Acting? Aside from Gunness and Cushing, most everyone was asleep at the switch, coked out of their mind or just terrible. I have mad love for Mark, but man he did himself no favors at times.

Also this might come as a shock to folks, but Empire was not well received or review at the time of release. Oh sure, people came around, but there was a lot of hate leveled at the flick at first.

Are there problems with 1-3? Of course. But I think that they are not nearly as bad as some folks make them out to be.

Yes they are.

Star Wars and the OT launched Harrison Ford's meteoric rise, Natalie Portman was just recently interviewed that the PT nearly ended hers in its infancy. Those are opinions of people who act in movies and the decisions made by people who produce movies, made in the context of both when the films came out, and looking back. Not the opinions of anonymous fans on forums. Really pretty much the end of the conversation in my mind.

great and the acting careers of everyone who wasn't Harrisson Ford? I'm just saying.

What the others chose to do with their options was their business, the point which you seem to have missed, is that people were knocking on their doors, as opposed to poor Natalie Portman that had studio executives intentionally passing her over because of the OT.

In addition feel free to link an article where JJ Abrams or anyone involved in the production of the new movies was quoted as saying they want to capture the essence, performances or look of the PT in the new movies being produced, as opposed to the comparisons they are making to the old movies. I feel that only adds to clear up the discussion about what people who actually make and fund movies think of the two efforts compared to one another.

Hard to say when original Star Wars actors don't even have to act due to royalties, who is to say their careers necessarily suffered since up until the 90's they were still among the highest paid actors in the business off royalties alone.

great and the acting careers of everyone who wasn't Harrisson Ford? I'm just saying.

And arguably that was at least as much Raiders as it was Star Wars.

But Mark? Yeah, Slipstream, The Guyver and The Flash. It was Batman that was his big comeback roll. Carrie? Blues Brothers and Under the Rainbow - not exactly tearing up the box-office.

I'm not putting a lot of stock in Abrams, who seems to be so intent on making a Not Prequel film that all he seems to be doing is doing a Star Wars Greatest Hits - at least judging by the spoilers thus far (and, to a degree, his take on Star Trek).

Although I would argue that the emotional payoff of the Vader story arc saves the movie. Plus, even 30 years on, no fighter combat scene - not the new episodes, not ID4, not anything in the modern era of movies - has beaten the Starfighter furball over Endor.

And those two “H” characters on the bottom of the Falcon.