Re: Let's Actually Watch the Movie: Empire Strikes Back
Posted: Sat April 20, 2019 10:57 pm
Did...did you just quote empire at me?
Not sure I totally agree with you here but I like the sentiment.dimejinky99 wrote:Empire turns 39 today.
We wouldn’t be talking about this film today if it weren’t for Mark Hamills acting ability and performance making us believe in that little green puppet was alive.
All credit to him.
durdencommatyler wrote:Not sure I totally agree with you here but I like the sentiment.dimejinky99 wrote:Empire turns 39 today.
We wouldn’t be talking about this film today if it weren’t for Mark Hamills acting ability and performance making us believe in that little green puppet was alive.
All credit to him.
I'm not a big fan of Hamill as an actor, honestly. But I agree with all the rest of it. Yoda is amazing. But Frank Oz deserves all the credit for that.dimejinky99 wrote:durdencommatyler wrote:Not sure I totally agree with you here but I like the sentiment.dimejinky99 wrote:Empire turns 39 today.
We wouldn’t be talking about this film today if it weren’t for Mark Hamills acting ability and performance making us believe in that little green puppet was alive.
All credit to him.
Top down they all say if Yoda doesn’t work the film is a disaster. Marshall brought Yoda to life.
But it’s hamills performance that makes you immediately buy into it.
hear, hear!dimejinky99 wrote:Empire is 40 years old today
Still the greatest film ever made
I'm not sure you're supposed to read that as he's the literal person in charge. More like a leader in a spiritual sense, not a military sense. Leader as in a person people will rally behind and follow because of their charisma and skill, not their rank.B wrote:I watched this with the kids last night, and I noticed something. The opening crawl says, "Evading the dreaded Imperial Starfleet, a group of freedom fighters led by Luke Skywalker has established a new secret base on the remote ice world of Hoth."
Now, Luke's a Commander, he outranks Solo, but did you ever have the impression he was in charge at Echo Base, like THE leader? Not Leia who briefs the troops on their evacuation plan? Not the General who Solo talks to about leaving to pay his bounty? Not Solo who is barking orders at everyone when Luke goes missing?
He's obviously the leader of Rogue Squadron, ONE squadron, but he's not running this whole operation. Would you have sent your top leader off into a hostile environment to do the peon's job of scanning for life?
I tried googling ranks. It's apparently very complicated. I could be wrong about that.wease wrote:And I thought Captain was a higher rank than Commander.
If we go by Star Trek rules -- and why wouldn't we??? -- Captain is higher than Commander.B wrote:I tried googling ranks. It's apparently very complicated. I could be wrong about that.wease wrote:And I thought Captain was a higher rank than Commander.
If that's right, then Luke is even less the leader that I thought.durdencommatyler wrote:If we go by Star Trek rules -- and why wouldn't we??? -- Captain is higher than Commander.B wrote:I tried googling ranks. It's apparently very complicated. I could be wrong about that.wease wrote:And I thought Captain was a higher rank than Commander.
Well, B, I don't know what to tell you.B wrote:If that's right, then Luke is even less the leader that I thought.durdencommatyler wrote:If we go by Star Trek rules -- and why wouldn't we??? -- Captain is higher than Commander.B wrote:I tried googling ranks. It's apparently very complicated. I could be wrong about that.wease wrote:And I thought Captain was a higher rank than Commander.
I think it's a bit apologetic to say "he's the spiritual leader." I mean ... words matter. They could have said that in the crawl. They could have said "led by Princess Leia Organa" or not said "led by" at all. They chose to say this band of rebels was led by Luke Skywalker, and they are clearly not led by Luke.