sebastian shaw vs hayden christensen

[LordCrumb]

Who would you prefer to see in Return of the Jedi if it were to come to Blu-Ray?

Sebastian Shaw

Hayden Christensen

[Elvis]

There is only one correct answer here and its the original unaltered films! If not then why not just replace Sir Alec Guinness with Ewan Mcgregor.

[Batman1980]

Hayden Christensen, I don't associate that other actor with the part of Anakin's life where he was a good man.

[Mumps]

It's an absolute insult to Sebastian Shaw that they removed him and placed hayden in there! Not only does he look out of place, but... BAH! Thats always pissed me off...

I liked the prequel movies. Not as much as the original trilogy, but I enjoyed watching them. But Why change it? Why? They might as well have used the Anakin from the new Animated Clone Wars series! Would have looked just as out of place...

[TheForce8686]

Originally Posted by Mumps

It's an absolute insult to Sebastian Shaw that they removed him and placed hayden in there! Not only does he look out of place, but... BAH! Thats always pissed me off...

I liked the prequel movies. Not as much as the original trilogy, but I enjoyed watching them. But Why change it? Why? They might as well have used the Anakin from the new Animated Clone Wars series! Would have looked just as out of place...

Its not that insulting. I didnt know what this poll was for or who sebastian shaw was until i opened this thread.

[Starpower67]

You know here is another problem with them adding Hayden to the end of jedi. Besides the plot inconsitincies, and Haydens creepy glare. What about the people who have never heard or seen of the PT. This may seem unlikely but it is still possible. I know I have a aunt who went to see the originals back when they came out. She doesn't get on the internet much,and doesn't watch tv very often. So she honestly never heard about the PT, so when we were watching Jedi on tv when that scene came on it made absolutly no sense at all to her! So I had to explain the whole fiasco to her it was actualy sad.

[PS3-Playb3yond]

Originally Posted by Wolverine1980

Hayden Christensen, I don't associate that other actor with the part of Anakin's life where he was a good man.

I agree. I think replacing him with Hayden Christensen fits.

[Sussudio]

Originally Posted by Wolverine1980

Hayden Christensen, I don't associate that other actor with the part of Anakin's life where he was a good man.

And that was Lucas' reason for replacing him...showing him before he turned to the dark side.

Anyway, I really don't care. A person's a person and they're the same person whoever you use. I'm not so in love with the movies that it bothers me either way (I'm also someone that isn't bothered by the whole han shot first argument...which I still don't even understand to begin with).

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by Sussudio

And that was Lucas' reason for replacing him...showing him before he turned to the dark side.

Anyway, I really don't care. A person's a person and they're the same person whoever you use. I'm not so in love with the movies that it bothers me either way (I'm also someone that isn't bothered by the whole han shot first argument...which I still don't even understand to begin with).

I don't understand it either because he still wins the gun fight and he's still a hero that kicks butt. Guess I'm too "young" or something. 30 tomorrow, by the way.

[J6P]

Originally Posted by Sussudio

And that was Lucas' reason for replacing him...showing him before he turned to the dark side.

Anyway, I really don't care. A person's a person and they're the same person whoever you use. I'm not so in love with the movies that it bothers me either way (I'm also someone that isn't bothered by the whole han shot first argument...which I still don't even understand to begin with).

Originally Posted by Wolverine1980

I don't understand it either because he still wins the gun fight and he's still a hero that kicks butt. Guess I'm too "young" or something. 30 tomorrow, by the way.

It's the difference between justifiable manslaughter and BADASSERY.

The difference really defines his character as he is introduced. The old Han was a rogue, a gunslinger. The new Han is firing in self defense.

I think these sorts of changes stemmed from Lucas being a dad when he revisited the movies, and not wanting to portray his heroes with shades of gray that would teach bad lessons to the kiddies; his and others.

I prefer the rogue that shot first. It made a big impact when I saw it for the first time as a 12-year old. Han seemed dangerous, which I liked.

[mikejet]

I'm still waiting for the version that has James Earl Jones there.

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by mikejet

I'm still waiting for the version that has James Earl Jones there.

I don't think that version was ever shot!

[Bluyoda]

Originally Posted by Sussudio

And that was Lucas' reason for replacing him...showing him before he turned to the dark side.

Anyway, I really don't care. A person's a person and they're the same person whoever you use. I'm not so in love with the movies that it bothers me either way (I'm also someone that isn't bothered by the whole han shot first argument...which I still don't even understand to begin with).

I agree, especially the Han short first thing. Come on! Uhhh, so it makes Han a little less of a scoundrel! That's the end of the world now, isn't it.

People get so attached to their opinions and memories, that they suffer when it's time to let go.
If you are REAL SW fans you should know better.

SW is basically based on Zen Buddhism, and that's about letting go, because that's the only way to soar and be truly happy from within.

[Elvis]

I just knew this would go the way of the Han and everything else arguments. We must all be bored arguing over in the Avatar and Oscar threads.

[J6P]

Originally Posted by Bluyoda

I agree, especially the Han short first thing. Come on! Uhhh, so it makes Han a little less of a scoundrel! That's the end of the world now, isn't it.

People get so attached to their opinions and memories, that they suffer when it's time to let go.
If you are REAL SW fans you should know better.

SW is basically based on Zen Buddhism, and that's about letting go, because that's the only way to soar and be truly happy from within.

That particular change has nothing to do with trampling my childhood memories, it has to do with successful storytelling. The original scene was much stronger.

To me, it's akin to Micheal Bay changing Roosevelt's address to Congress in Pearl Harbor from:

I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7th, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese empire.

...to...

Because of this unprovoked, dastardly attack by Japan, I ask that the congress declare a state of War.

"Since this attack, a state of war has existed" is much stronger than "I ask that congress declare a state of war". No need to rewrite awesome, when awesome exists right in front of you.

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by Wolverine1980

Hayden Christensen, I don't associate that other actor with the part of Anakin's life where he was a good man.

Yep.

Hayden portrayed that turn from angst ridden teenager to Sith perfectly.

[Bluyoda]

Originally Posted by Elvis View Post
There is only one correct answer here and its the original unaltered films! If not then why not just replace Sir Alec Guinness with Ewan Mcgregor.

EXACTLY! If you replace one, than you have to replace them both. Otherwise it's totally out of place.

It's absolutely not out of place. Obi Wan was never bad to begin with, so to replace Alex with Ewan would be completely out of place.

It has to be Hayden, because that's what he looked like when he was still on the light side of the force.

They couldn't shoot the young Anakin back in 83 for obvious reasons.

It makes perfect sense, as it does to replace the terrible puppet from Empire with Ian as the Emperor as seen in all the other movies.

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by Bluyoda

Originally Posted by Elvis View Post
There is only one correct answer here and its the original unaltered films! If not then why not just replace Sir Alec Guinness with Ewan Mcgregor.

EXACTLY! If you replace one, than you have to replace them both. Otherwise it's totally out of place.

It's absolutely not out of place. Obi Wan was never bad to begin with, so to replace Alex with Ewan would be completely out of place.

It has to be Hayden, because that's what he looked like when he was still on the light side of the force.

They couldn't shoot the young Anakin back in 83 for obvious reasons.

It makes perfect sense, as it does to replace the terrible puppet from Empire with Ian as the Emperor as seen in all the other movies.

I don't really care what he does as long as he gives those of us that want the films unaltered a choice in the Blu format. To aknowledge some of the changes is to ackowledge the prequels.....and I would rather not.

[LordCrumb]

Originally Posted by Bluyoda

It makes perfect sense, as it does to replace the terrible puppet from Empire with Ian as the Emperor as seen in all the other movies.

It wasn't a puppet, just bad makeup.

[jadedeath]

Hayden.

It is a spiritual representation of Anakin BEFORE he turned to the dark side.

Next time George Lucas {or anyone} makes a movie like Star Wars they should just have a tennis ball on a stick with a sign around it saying "This is where someone will stand if/when we get around to filming the prequel, kthxbai"

Logan