I choose Lord of the Rings. . .

I've had enough with Jar Jar ;-)

etc

I saw the first Star Wars movie six times at the theatre. The second one was good until the end with that stupid "I'm your father" stuff. The third was boring and the new one was also boring. I'm just not into Star Wars I guess. It's bad writing buried under tons of special effects.

So yeah, I hope LOTR is great. For some reason medieval fantasy doesn't seem to translate as well to the big screen as does sci-fi, though.

I think it might be an intensity issue. Most of the fantasy stuff in the '80s (when it was everywhere) was slow and boring. In Sci-fi, you have brief interludes between action sequences as the ships blast around at warp speed. In fantasy, the journey generally IS the story. Unfortunately, screenwriters have usually translated "journey" to mean a lot of walking in circles, throwing in the odd encounter with odd-looking creatures to try and keep things moving along. The online LOTR movie clips I've seen indicate that they have at least learned to keep the action going in terms of advertising. If they can manage it during the movies as well, those things should be great, based on the elements I've seen in the clips.

"Unfortunately, screenwriters have usually translated "journey" to mean a lot of walking in circles, throwing in the odd encounter with odd-looking creatures to try and keep things moving along."

Heh -- that's a nice summary. I like The Last Dragon. That was fun.

Actually, one of my favorite fantasies is that George Romero movie about the bikers who stage medieval jousts on their bikes. It's a retelling of the Arthur legend. That's a great movie.

As someone who is a major fan of both Star Wars and LOTR, I think it's almost unfair to compare the two. First of all, you've got one of the greatest movie series of all times versus one of the greatest series of books of all time. LOTR was not intended to be a movie. You guys are right; the journey IS the plot. It's going to be difficult to add too much action to the movie via odd encounters with odd-looking creatures without straying from the plot of the book.

Now, about Star Wars. I have never taken it to be bad writing, but everyone is entitled to his own opinion. But the movies are just so great on so many levels. George Lucas has always been about more than just telling a story. He has tried to teach lessons as well. I'll be the first to admit the Empire Strikes Back is a little slow, and not my favorite of all the movies, but...boring? Hmm. Never thought I'd hear anyone say that. And I thought The Phantom Menace was spectacular. But that's just my opinion.

So, to sum up: LOTR should not be forced to compete against Star Wars. Sounds like several people around here don't feel like that's a huge task, but, nevertheless, Star Wars is a classic series of movies. Designed to be movies. And they've had such a world-wide impact on what movies are and what they should be. The first one was made twenty years ago, and is still the standard against which many movies are held, particularly Sci-Fi. And in my opinion, rightfully so. But LOTR doesn't have to do what Star Wars has done. It may very well be a great movie, and I hope it is, but we have to keep in mind that Tolkien meant it as a book (or several of them.) Occasionally, a great book can make a great movie. But not ALL great books make great movies. And not all great movies came from books. I guess what I'm trying to say is this: A movie that is derived from a book is not likely to be a great as movie that was always just that -- a movie.

I only prefer LoTR becuase the last Star Wars movie was like some kind of Kids show in Space. . . i mean it always has been about getting the "kids" to like Star WArs. . . but the last one (episode 1) was just too "cutesy" for me. . .I fear the second one will be more the same . . .though Empire was a far cry from the original Star Wars, so its better to have low expectations this time around for episode 2. And believe you me, I was a BIG BIG star wars fan . . . I practically memorized all the lines from all of the first three when i was a lil tyke!!!

As well Lord of the Rings has alot of hype to live up to . . . but based on the previews i read and the few trailers i've seen, the movie looks to be different than any other fantasy movie ever made. . . well maybe not. . . we shall see arnd next XMas!!!

etc

"i mean it always has been about getting the "kids" to like Star WArs. . . but the last one (episode 1) was just too "cutesy" for me. ."

Yeah, it was really pretty bad. Jar Jar was a disaster. I know they had to introduce Anakin, but his big scene was the race. They should have shunted him to the side after that. But no, he gets to save the day again by piloting a fighter in the final battle scene.

For me the movie just wasn't that interesting. I didn't hate it, but I was slightly bored by it.

Of course it's a work of art compared to some of the kids movies I've sat through. The Pokemon an Digimon movies were horrible. Every minute dragged.

"i mean it always has been about getting the "kids" to like Star WArs. . . but the last one (episode 1) was just too "cutesy" for me. ."

That's a good point. The original Star Wars was a fairy tale. Good for kids, but with lots of adult elements, like love and honor and philosophy, however weak. Empire was also good like that. It was slower, but I still liked it. 3 was much more kids-oriented, and weaker for the adult interest. The last movie was just a kids' flick. The villains were largely characatures, and Jar-Jar, well, books have probably been written about what was wrong with him. Even the actors (Liam Neeson, etc.) didn't like being in the movie. I'm not saying it's bad, but Lucas has clearly changed his focus from adults to kids as he has gone. I'm fine with that, but it does have the side effect of making Star Wars movies much less interesting for me.

LOTR was a lot like the original Star Wars: A very adult story, wrapped up inside what looked like a fairy tale. Very cool stuff, all with great potential. A journey doesn't have to be boring. The issue is getting a screenwriter who associates "journey" with adventure, and not with a long drive from Hollywood to Las Vegas in hot weather ;-)

It is like shooting fish in a barrel, but David Brin wrote some good critiques of the story (ahem) in Star Wars. Here's a link to his home page. He nailed a problem I had with Episode I: when Lucas brought in the midichlorians (shudder), he removed the ability of the everyman to become a Jedi. You were born with it, or you weren't, like royalty. I liked it better when I was able to assume that anyone could become a Jedi, like martial arts training. Some might be better than others, but it really was just an issue of discipline and control. This has seriously decreased my enjoyment of the series.

Rumour i hear is that SW episode 2 is based on the Clone Wars, which are supposed to be cloned jedi knights made by the empire. .. so maybe its not like royalty exactly but more the gene pool thing.

Though i hear the Yoda was a wannabe Jedi who had to prove himself. . .guess we'll never know since hes pretty old in the the first episode SW.

Anyway, my biggest gripe is that Star Wars is the epic that CAN redefine movie epics if George Lucas wants it to (and some say the first three already had); but based on the first episode alone, looks like Lucas is doing it all for marketing and hype and $$$ imo. Then again most ppl would anyway. . .

etc

The thing about Lucas is that I wonder just how good a director he is? He really doesn't have a lot of movies under his belt -- American Graffiti, THX-1138, the Star Wars stuff, and what else? He seems to have a genius for presentation, but I'm not all that impressed by him in other areas.

Blade Runner is still my favorite sci-fi film. The Terminator movies are a lot of fun too. So is the first Alien movie.

well considering he didn't write or direct both Empire and Return; he seems more a producer type. . . though we do have to give him credit for the THX sound stuff and other technology stuff i guess. . .he's more a "zeitgeist" director type i guess, tapping into "america's dreams" etc etc that phooey stuff.

Ridley Scott is a great director imo. . . he goes from Alien to Blade Runner to Gladiator. great stuff! It's odd how much Lucas is heralded as an icon of movie making when he really has only directed like 3 or 4 movies . . .still though Star Wars was great!

etc

Lucasfilm also took part in the producing of the Indiana Jones movies, didn't they?

Episode II is not likely to be as much of a kids movie -- not that I particularly took Episode I to be, but apparently a lot of people did. And Episode III is said to be "dark. Very dark." Lucas himself said that a lot of his fans won't be really pleased with Ep. III, but he has to finish his story. I don't think he's focusing on any particular audience. I think he's trying to please as many people as possible. You guys can't tell me that the final battle in Ep. I with Darth Maul and his double-bladed lightsaber wasn't awesome!! That was art, plain and simple. (Ray Park is so cool!) And maybe Jar-Jar wasn't the character Lucas was hoping for, but he was just one character. Maybe he was mainly for the kids (although my wife loved him), but I don't think that the whole movie came off as a "kids movie." At least it didn't to me. I still watch it. I loved it. (Mainly for that lightsaber duel...) The jedi were so much cooler in Ep. I.

And, as for the midichlorians...Everyone has them. Remember Qui-Gon saying "without them, life couldn't exist..."? So, anyone could still be a jedi -- some are just naturally more "in-tune" with the force. And Lucas didn't just bring them into the picture in the newest film -- he's always had them in mind. It's almost scary how much he plans in advance. Kinda like Tolkein, in that respect. I always admired how thorough he was -- writing a whole language for the elves and dwarves, even though he only needed a few sentences in the books...

Just out of curiosity...Who didn't enjoy making the film? Natalie Portman and Ewan MacGregor both said they enjoyed making it, and that they looked forward to the next one. And Samuel L. Jackson can't wait. (He gets to fight in Episode II.) We're even gonna see Yoda with a lightsaber in either II or III. How cool is that?

"And maybe Jar-Jar wasn't the character Lucas was hoping for, but he was just one character."

One incredibly annoying character who appeared in over 80% of the scenes in the movie. Blech. Which leads me to...

I saw one of those specials where they interview members of the cast. If memory serves (and it might not), Liam Neeson was the only one that out-and-out said he didn't really enjoy making the movie. The others did agree with him, though, that it was very hard work, because most of the time you were staring off into space at a to-be-added-later special effect (like Jar-Jar) when delivering your lines. It made it more like delivering monologues than having conversations, which wasn't very satisfying.

Last, so far as Jedi being cooler...I dunno. I thought the Jedi council was a bunch of old hens, impotently sitting in their ivory tower, bemoaning all the things that could go wrong, rather than looking for ways to make things better. Not a particulary good attitude, IMO. Gi-Quon was cool, and I liked Obi-Wan's attitude as well, but the rest of 'em, nah.

"I like The Last Dragon. That was fun. "

Woo! The Coolie Kid! I'd forgotten that one. It was a good time.

sho' nuff!

Forget LOTR-- go see Traffic if you want to see a really good movie.

Forgive me, I can't resist this opportunity to go into Internet rant mode. Please note, also, that between the ages of eight and nine I saw Star Wars around 20 times.

George Lucas is a nutjob who lost touch with reality a long ways back. Anyone remember the piece in the NYT where he stated that there will be no need to shoot on location soon, thanks to technology? He seems to have zero comprehension of the importance of a film actor's interaction with his or her surroundings.

The man is so clueless at this point that he's behaving in exact opposition to what his movies preach. Remember when Luke pushed aside the targeting computer before dealing the Death Star the coup de grace? "Using the Force" is all about trusting your intuition, your humanity, over the convenience of cold technology, right? And George Lucas is constantly touting this message. Yet there he goes, systematically replacing humanity/reality with technology. Jar Jar Binks is beautiful illustration of this process -- an utterly manufactued being, utterly devoid of soul.

George Lucas is a technological innovator, and a genius in that regard. As a storyteller, though, he's as derivative as can be imagined. The influence of all of the movies he loved as a kid -- WWII, westerns, samurai flicks -- is nakedly apparent in Star Wars. That he would see a need (other than commercial) to drag these cliched ideas out over nine movies is mind-boggling.

Lord of the Rings wins hands down for me. It's got heart, it's got soul, it's borne of a deep connection to human myth and relationships. Where Star Wars is merely another entry in the genre of science fiction, Lord of the Rings spawned an entire genre on its own. The Fantasy section of every bookstore would not exist without Lord of the Rings; every computer RPG and their pen-and-paper precedents owe their existence to Mr. Tolkien. And despite all that has come after, none has yet touched its grandeur, depth, and beauty.

Whether Peter Jackson can pull it off as a film is another question, but every choice he's made so far has been smart and indicative of someone who cares very much about his chosen task. His main obstacle is the same as that which seduced Lucas: the Dark Side. If Jackson can resist the temptation to overuse special effects (something to which he has succumbed in the past), and keep a handle on the characters and story, he may create a masterpiece.

In any case, I predict that the Lucas franchise will continue to fade, and that LoTR will achieve the same status as cultural touchstone to this new generation as Star Wars did to mine. Which will be fine my me, since it'll be a big step up.

Great points above. I agree wholeheartedly.

Oddly, my father was heavily into Tolkien. My Dad kept trying to get me to go back and read them, but I really didn't care for the first book, so I wouldn't be talked into it. I was a voracious reader as a kid, I'd read almost any damn thing you threw my way-- but the LOTR books left me cold. Not sure why.

Still, the LOTR universe is a hell of a lot more interesting than the Star Wars universe. Definitely more potential there, but also larger pitfalls-- it's a complex and lengthy series.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"I still watch it. I loved it. (Mainly for that lightsaber duel...) The jedi were so much cooler in Ep. I."

There were two good parts in Episode I, as nailed by Scott Kurtz in this strip.

Have you played the big sit-down pod racing game in the arcade? Totally worth the $1 a pop.

Jason,

Excellent post. I couldn't have said it better, including your reservations about Jackson's LOTR.

BTW, I maintain that Lucas is an awful director and Star Wars is a bad movie. That doesn't diminish my love for it, however; I put the tape in to look up a line last night and ended up watching the second half of the movie yet again. But Star Wars is a clumsy cheesy poorly-acted B-movie that just happened to take hold of the imagination of a nation of nine-year-olds who grew up using it as a cultural frame of reference. Too bad its creator is a complete hack...

-Tom

well if you want to get a sneak preview of sorts for LoTR the Ralph Bakshi version of LoTR is actually pretty good (thogh it ends halfway thru The Two Towers). There was one montage in Bakshi's LoTR that really rang true to the book. . . it was the scene when they made it to Rivendale and the fellowship is "fooling around" like a fellowship. . . reminded me alot of what an adventure is (well like in DnD). the music score for Bakshi's LoTR was also pretty good too!

do pick up the Bakshi LoTR, though incomplete it still does Tolkien's book well imo (though a little darker than i would have expected.)

etc

"But Star Wars is a clumsy cheesy poorly-acted B-movie that just happened to take hold of the imagination of a nation of nine-year-olds who grew up using it as a cultural frame of reference. Too bad its creator is a complete hack"

aye, make sure not to post a Star Wars review on the net. . . if you thought ppl were angry over your Deus Ex review. . .sheesh ppl would bust chops with this star wars comment!!! though i agree partly with it actually. . .

etc

---

Quote:

BTW, I maintain that Lucas is an awful director and Star Wars is a bad movie. That doesn't diminish my love for it, however; I put the tape in to look up a line last night and ended up watching the second half of the movie yet again. But Star Wars is a clumsy cheesy poorly-acted B-movie that just happened to take hold of the imagination of a nation of nine-year-olds who grew up using it as a cultural frame of reference. Too bad its creator is a complete hack...

---

Lucas has truly done something that no one else has done! Maybe the acting is not the best ever, the special effects may not be the best ever (although some of the effects in Ep. I were pretty dang close...), maybe the writing is not the best ever, but when looked at as a whole -- especially considering that the first one made is over twenty years old -- he has created nothing short of a masterpiece. To whoever made the comment about Star Wars being "just another film in the Sci-Fi genre," I disagree. It definitely set the standard.

Sure, Jar-Jar may not have been Lucas' finest moment. But if you can set that aside, I really think that Ep. I was pretty dang good. The acting was good (I thought), the writing was pretty decent, and the special effects are very impressive.

You've also got to respect what Lucas has done with technology. Perhaps it is a bit hypocritical, as was suggested in one post, but in the film-making processes he has had so many firsts...Right up to the making of Ep. II on totally digital film, rather than the reels that have been used for so long. And Jar-Jar, while as a character may not have been a crowd-pleaser, was technically one of the greatest examples of CGI ever. I don't think you guys are giving the movies enough credit. Sure, maybe not everyone likes the movies, but they are pretty incredible in a lot of ways.

Tom: "I maintain that Lucas is an awful director and Star Wars is a bad movie. That doesn't diminish my love for it, however..."

Yeah, it's only diminished mine a little over the years. I know practically every line by now; I still have a great affection for the terrible acting and some if the still-remarkable action scenes. Empire is still fun to watch too; they lost me pretty much at Jedi.

Murph: "To whoever made the comment about Star Wars being "just another film in the Sci-Fi genre," I disagree. It definitely set the standard."

What I wrote was, "Star Wars is merely another entry in the genre of science fiction." I was speaking of it as a story, in relation to Lord of the Rings as a story. I agree that it clearly set the standard for science fiction *movies*, but as a story, it's derivative and cliched (which was part of its recipe for success, and which doesn't mean it's not fun).

Murph: "You've also got to respect what Lucas has done with technology..."

I do respect how Lucas has advanced the technology of filmmaking. But I have no respect for his mindless application of those advances. A lot of what he does, he does because he can, not because it helps the story. Again, look at Jar Jar -- He's just a technology demo.

He *is* an accomplished director of action scenes, particularly dogfights and chases, because he seems to have a genuine, deeply-felt love for things that move fast. Which makes complete sense when you consider his drag racing years.

The other real talent he's demonstrated is at gathering talented people around him. Everyone goes on about his "vision" of the Star Wars universe, but that vision is the result of the collaborative effort of some of the most creative and skilled craftsmen in the industry. Lucas didn't create the look of the spaceships, the aliens, the costumes, the environments -- his empoyees did. He said "Stormtroopers are armored soldiers" and Ralph McQuarrie conjured them up out of *his* imagination.

I can't resist the temptation to bring up a couple sad and beautiful Alec Guinness anecdotes:

When Guinness realized he was trapped in a bad movie, he convinced Lucas to kill off his character, which resulted in the most poignant scene. It's the only time when The Force is given real meaning, the only time when the movies show anything close to an understanding of the Buddhist beliefs on which The Force is based. Alas, money problems must have kept Guinness coming back for those delightful ghost appearances, but at least he didn't have to play off all of the bad actors anymore.

Long after the Star Wars phenomenon had taken off, Guinness is passing through an aiport when a woman and her son -- thrilled at the presence of Obi Wan -- approach him. The woman says, "He just loves Star Wars so much. He's seen it hundreds of times." Guinness is horrified.

He leans down and says to the boy, "Young fellow, I want you to promise me something. Will you promise me something?"

"Yes, yes, anything!"

"I want you to promise me that you will never, ever, watch that movie again."

Jason -
I agree with every word of that. Lucas has the greatest employees, and that makes the movies great. Sure, I admit, a lot of the acting sucked. But that's beside the point. People watch the movies to see the conflict of good evil. Sure, you can see it anywhere, but there's something so captivating about the way Star Wars portrays it. People watch the movies for the great special effects. People watch the movies because, deep down inside, everyone would love to be a jedi! (That's why I loved Ep. I. It gives a look at the jedi that you just don't get from Luke Skywalker or Obi-Wan in his older years.)

Sure, Lucas is not solely responsible for what the movies have become; only a fool would claim that he was. But he has inspired the story, the plot twists, and insured the continuity from movie to movie, and even with the incorporation of the books. And I admire him for being so thorough. Every stormtrooper has a name, every droid has a story. (As I stated before, I always admired Tolkien for a lot of the same reasons.) And I love it that he has such a passion for telling his story. He has openly stated that will lose some fans in Episodes II and III, II because it's gonna be "a love story" and III because it will be "very dark." He doesn't expect either of them to be the box-office money-makers that the rest have been. But, he also states that he cares more about finishing his story than any of that. I like that; I like his focus.

"He *is* an accomplished director of action scenes, particularly dogfights and chases, because he seems to have a genuine, deeply-felt love for things that move fast. Which makes complete sense when you consider his drag racing years."

Hey, good point! Although as an aficianado of chase scenes (i.e. action sequences in which things go fast), I loathe the pod race in Episode I. It's a blatant rip off of Ben Hur, but without any soul. The motivation is overly contrived, the protagonist (that fucking kid) is hidden behind goggles and incapable of showing any emotion anyway, and the other actors are just digital puppets played for laughs. Ugh.

"The other real talent he's demonstrated is at gathering talented people around him."

Another good point. Empire is a great movie because he relinquished enough control to let someone put some depth into it.

"When Guinness realized he was trapped in a bad movie, he convinced Lucas to kill off his character, which resulted in the most poignant scene."

That's awesome. What's your source for that, Jason? I'd heard the kid in the airport one before, but this one's new to me.

I'd love to address some of Murph's points, but I don't want to start anything I can't stick around for. I'm leaving town for a while tomorrow, so I'll leave it to Jason. :)

-Tom

"I'm leaving town for a while tomorrow, so I'll leave it to Jason."

The lucky bastard's going to the Sundance film festival. Ever better, he's rooming with three cute women! Goddamn LA actors! :)

Murph, I agree that at least the first two Star Wars movies are good light entertainment, but more due to their trappings than the story at their core. Good vs. evil is the oldest story in the book, and as long as human beings like their world simplified and digestible, they will never tire of hearing it. But I'm much more interested in stories that challenge the audience by exploring the gray areas. Compare how Luke and Bilbo wrestled with their respective dark sides; which story has no easy answer, is more nuanced, more true to life?

Murph: "People watch the movies because, deep down inside, everyone would love to be a jedi!"

When Lucas starts to talk about the message of his story, I find it harder to just accept it all as light entertainment, and I begin to take issue with the Star Wars mythology. In the first three movies the notion of anyone becoming a Jedi was plausible, in that The Force was vague enough to be interpreted as something accessible to anyone with proper discipline and training. At one point, someone even mentions that Han Solo could give it a whirl if he just believed in it (there goes your continuity). This is in keeping with the idea of self-realization that Lucas says he wants young viewers to take way from the movies.

With Episode I, though, The Force becomes a birthright, something akin to power by divine right or, at worst, a sort of genetic superiority. If I have kids one day, I'd rather that not be something they learn. Instead, I'll try to slake their entertainment thirst with a steady diet of Hayao Miyazake videos :)

Tom: "...as an aficianado of chase scenes..."

Tom, have you played Driver 2 for the PSX? It does a nice job of capturing that 70s, French Connection car chase vibe, and the coolest feature is the ability to save and edit mission films, so you can even pretend you're William Friedkin. I don't know how many other driving games have that (I haven't played many), but it's a neat feature.

Tom: "What's your source for [the Guinness anecdote]?"

The man himself, in a radio interview that aired shortly after his death. The interviewer was asking him to relate some of the things he wrote about in his most recent autobiography, so it may be in there as well. Also, a friend of mine is the editor of the official Star Wars fan magazine, and he's confirmed it.

Tangent: Oddly, Guinness had the same effect in Star Wars that Patrick Stewart did on The Next Generation. Accomplished actors surrounded by amateurs and technological trickery, still able -- against all odds -- to bring dignity and gravity to their respective roles.

"Tom, have you played Driver 2 for the PSX?"

I played the first Driver and I loved the look and the feel. Excellent physics engine. I didn't get the second because I heard it had some graphics slowdown and I'm suspicious of the on-foot stuff. But the first Driver made for great replays, too.

BTW, I'm serious about being an aficianado of chases scenes. Glad you mentioned French Connection. For a variety of reasons, it is the non-pareil of chase scenes:

http://www.dailyradar.com/columns/showbiz_column_125.html

"Oddly, Guinness had the same effect in Star Wars that Patrick Stewart did on The Next Generation. Accomplished actors surrounded by amateurs and technological trickery, still able -- against all odds -- to bring dignity and gravity to their respective roles."

Actually, I don't think Guniness was that good in Star Wars. He's all but rolling his eyes, which is why I loved hearing your anecdote about him getting Lucas to kill the character off. There's a sort of ubiquitious smirk on Guinness' face above and beyond the one he normally wore.

I've said this many times, but I think Peter Cushing is the only actor in Star Wars who escapes with his dignity intact. After years of Hammer Films, that man can tackle anything!

-Tom

Let us not forget who played the ORIGINAL Dr. Who... In the *movie* that is.

(drumroll)

Peter Cushing.

Yeah, you're right Tom -- Cushing is the guy down in the B-movie trenches, a totally hardened and unshakable veteran who commits to every task put before him, while Guinness is more of an aristocratic officer.

Dont forget Jar Jar. . . the lovable oaf. . . doesn't Jar Jar deserve all the Jar Jar attention we can give him?

Shame on you all!

How DARE you forget the wonderful performance of Jar Jar. Tears are welling up in me eyes . .. -(

NO DAMMIT!!!

etc

Weesa loooove Jar Jar!

Jar Jar! Jar Jar! Jar Jar!

"Meesa Jar Jar Gump! Theysa call meesa Jar Jar Gump!"

Yousa no liken Jar jar, yousa gonna be wobbed and crunched!

;-)

Okay, I'll keep this one short. You've all made very good points, and I guess what it boils down to is this: Those who don't like the Star Wars movies probably never will, and those who do like them will never stop. I don't know what it is about them; I've never stopped to analyze the acting as much as here on this board. I just know that I love the movies, and I always will.

Jason, the one thing I'd like to say is that I don't think even in Episode I that being a jedi is a birthright. I still think that the midichlorians exist in everyone (according to the movie, of course), just some people have greater concentrations than others, so for some people it comes easier. Qui-Gon warned Anakin that training is very difficult, and perhaps the council only seeks those with higher midichlorian counts because it would be easier for them to stick to it. But I will always believe that anyone with the patience and dedication can become a jedi, but that the natural ability makes it easier.

Also, when does someone elude to Solo becoming a jedi? I know the movies backward and forward, and can't remember that reference. Sad to hear about Alec Guiness's attitude toward the movies. I guess just because I love them so much, it's hard to hear that he hated them. Oh, well.

(And, hey, since Tom's leaving, I guess that means no Shoot Club!?! What will we do!)

"Ever better, he's rooming with three cute women! "

Am I the only one that noticed this post amid the Star Wars stuff? Reading that makes me lose all interest in Star Wars and computer games. Tom, post pictures!

is this Tom Chick the one I found in IMDB?

is this real?

"Frasier" (1993) playing "Waiter #1"(as Tom W. Chick) in episode: "Desperately Seeking Closure" (episode # 5.8) 12/9/1997
"Frasier" (1993) playing "Waiter"(as Tom W. Chick) in episode: "1000th Show, The" (episode # 5.5) 11/11/1997
"ER" (1994) playing "Weissbroot" in episode: "Friendly Fire" (episode # 4.3) 10/9/1997
"NewsRadio" (1995) playing "Employee" in episode: "Song Remains The Same, The" (episode # 2.14)
"Beverly Hills, 90210" (1990) playing "Joe" in episode: "Rock of Ages" (episode # 5.12) 11/23/1994

Tom's gone for Sundance, but yes, it's real. He's a part-time actor.

He just filmed an episode of The King of Queens, but it may have already aired. I think his part, which was already small, but cut pretty drastically.

Tom is also portraying "Bo Bo Binks", uncle of Jar Jar in episode II. He's a waiter in the Mos Eisley cantina.

Ah-ah. Actors tend to get a little nippy if you make fun of them...

"Ever better, he's rooming with three cute women! "

"Am I the only one that noticed this post amid the Star Wars stuff? Reading that makes me lose all interest in Star Wars and computer games. Tom, post pictures! "

Ah, I've been bugging Mark for years to even post some "screenshots" of all the booth babes these journalistic teases keep telling us about but never showing. If he won't even do THAT, I wouldn't hold out much hope of seeing any "Three's Company" pics with Tom and the actresses.

Though, actually, I'm not sure why you would want to conjure that particular image anyway, no offense to Tom...

There really aren't that many booth babes at E3. Last year Codemasters trotted in the Hooters gals. There were a couple of belly dancers promoting Prince of Persia 3D. CNET had some centerfold women in to promote the Gamecenter Alliance program. GOD had some woman in who I think was a centerfold. I can't remember what she was promoting.

They're all nice, but I'm more amused by the people in costumes, like the Planet of the Apes actors.

Mostly it's just noise and confusion and PR people tugging at your sleeve as you walk by. The real goofy thing about it all is that you don't get to spend much time with any game, so about all you're doing is getting a quick two-minute impression and grabbing a press kit. 99% of what you read about games at E3 is based on this.

Also, the games all look more and more alike every year as they all use 3D engines now.

"CNET had some centerfold women in to promote the Gamecenter Alliance program. GOD had some woman in who I think was a centerfold. I can't remember what she was promoting."

If this isn't a testament to the effectiveness of booth babes, I don't know what is!

I don't really see the point of booth babes. If I'm in the mood to see sexy women, I can arrange a trip to a strip club. Then I can get an eyeful.

Booth babes to me are like someone pouring a nice cold beer and holding it out to me. Then when I reach for it they say, "Nope, you can't have this." What's the point, exactly?

"Booth babes to me are like someone pouring a nice cold beer and holding it out to me. Then when I reach for it they say, 'Nope, you can't have this.' What's the point, exactly? "

I think the same could be said about the strip club, except there you end up actually paying for that beer (a dollar at a time)that you can't have!

My guess would be that booth babes are actually counter-productive. Everyone looking at the babes, and not noticing your product. This may be helpful in some cases, depending on the product.

The other thing is that they smack of desperation to me. What, exactly, did the C/Net booth babes have to do with the Gamecenter alliance? Nothing, right? Just desperate fluff, to get people over to their booth. That part, I suspect, works fine. People arrive in droves. But, like Mark, they don't remember what they saw, other than the babes themselves.

About the only booth babes I ever heard of that made sense to me were the various Lara Croft models, and once I heard of a Duke Nukem model. Single characters, in character, make sense. They are identified with the game. I also heard that Bungie had a horned reaper and a mistress on display for Dungeon Keeper 2, but that might just fall under "costumes." Displays like that, I might remember along with the game. But a gaggle of babes, just sort of dressed up, eh?

"The other thing is that they smack of desperation to me. What, exactly, did the C/Net booth babes have to do with the Gamecenter alliance? Nothing, right? Just desperate fluff, to get people over to their booth. That part, I suspect, works fine. People arrive in droves. But, like Mark, they don't remember what they saw, other than the babes themselves."

Yeah but the booths themselves are competing for attention, so I guess they feel a need to be flashy.

I sort of hate walking around in the E3 ghetto. They have this downstairs hall, Kentia Hall, where the booths are quite a bit cheaper, apparently. Anyway, it's not as crowded and when I walk down the aisles I have these forlorn marketing people eyeing me desperately, hoping that I'll stop and ask about their product. I hate to do it because I don't want to get roped into a 10-minute spiel. I feel like I'm walking up to insurance agents and asking them to explain insurance options to me.