Chewbacca to appear in Star Wars Episode III

[AgPete]

If enough characters from Episodes IV-VI appear in the Episodes I-III, maybe they won't seem as bad. :p

------------------------------------------


Movie News
Chewie`s return in STAR WARS III
Let the Wookiee win again
Dateline: Thursday, April 24, 2003
(http://www.cinescape.com/0/editorial.asp?aff_id=0&this_cat=Movies&action=page&type_id=&cat_id=270338&obj_id=38418)

Uncle George's official STAR WARS website has informed fans that another classic character from EPISODES IV - V will be appearing in EPISODE III. Chewbacca the Wookiee, the 200-year-old co-pilot of the Millennium Falcon, will make an appearance in this final chapter of the prequels. The role will again be played by the man who originated the part, Peter Mayhew.

"I'm delighted to return as Chewbacca," Mayhew was quoted as saying on Lucasfilm's website. "I think his re-appearance in this film is a fitting way to tie the whole saga together, especially for Wookiee fans."

Also confirmed for EPISODE III were Anthony Daniels as C-3PO and Kenny Baker as R2-D2.

But will Chewie bump into the droids in EPISODE III? If the furry Kashyyykian remembered them, he hid it well from Han and the gang. But do remember that according to the expanded universe STAR WARS canon, the Empire enslaved the Wookies. Perhaps one of the scenes we'll see is Chewbacca in chains, being led away from his native planet by Clonetroopers.

[Franklinnoble]

Where'd you get this news?

I ask, because I used to get this sort of news from AICN, but I've gotten tired of their shameless whoring to any studio that runs banner ads on their website.

[AgPete]

Link is there. I've read AICN before too. Cinescape merged with a small independent film news site I used to check for updates. So now Cinescape is a substitute for AICN. The one problem I have with AICN is their website is a miserable blob of text and it's hard to find stuff.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by AgPete
Link is there. I've read AICN before too. Cinescape merged with a small independent film news site I used to check for updates. So now Cinescape is a substitute for AICN. The one problem I have with AICN is their website is a miserable blob of text and it's hard to find stuff.

The only thing worth reading on AICN anymore is the talkback forums... they're hella funny sometimes. But when Moriarty posted a very favorable review for "The Real Cancun" last week, that was it for me. And Harry's been an annoying overly-liberal sell-out punk for a long time.

[moriarty]

Originally posted by Franklinnoble
But when Moriarty posted a very favorable review for "The Real Cancun" last week, that was it for me. .


Just for the record ... that's not me. :)

(Not that I'm opposed to half naked college girls running around on springbreak).

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by moriarty
Just for the record ... that's not me. :)

(Not that I'm opposed to half naked college girls running around on springbreak).

Noted...

The Moriarty I'm referring to is one of the critics on AICN, and a self-professing screenwriter. He ought to at least have the balls to say that "The Real Cancun" is just cheap eye candy trying to cash in on the current reality TV craze. Nothing wrong with it.. but don't go reviewing it like it's a serious piece of cinematography.

[tucker342]

ahhhh, good 'ol Chewbacca...

[AgPete]

Originally posted by Franklinnoble
The only thing worth reading on AICN anymore is the talkback forums... they're hella funny sometimes. But when Moriarty posted a very favorable review for "The Real Cancun" last week, that was it for me. And Harry's been an annoying overly-liberal sell-out punk for a long time.

Honestly, I've never read their reviews. I just check the site for production news. Do you remember that story from Harry about how he previewed Star Wars Episode 2? I wish I could find it now that I've seen the movie and see if he was full of shit or if he had actually seen a sneak peak with his "inside sources." :p

[Easy Mac]

i bent my wookie

[sabotai]

I hope Chewie doesn't bump into the driods. The last thing we need is more continuity problems between 1-III and IV-VI.

[Daimyo]

CHEWBACCA!
CHEWIE!
WHAT A WOOKIE!

Episode I - wait in line for tickets and at the theater to get good seats
Episode II - random matinee approx. a month after release
Episode III - rent the DVD if nothing else looks good at the store...

Its a shame how these prequels turned out...

[mrskippy]

I happened to like the prequels and not just because of my future wife ... Natalie Portman.

[sabotai]

I actually like the prequels. Not love them...

I find the prequels to be about as good overall as the originals. I don't see why so many people hate them. Okay, Jar Jar was a great excuse to not liek the first one.

And the actors who played Anakin have pretty much sucked horribly. (But it's not liek Mr. Hamill gave an oscar winning performance either)

But other tham those two things, they seem to be pretty much close in terms of overall. I guess what I'm asking is what is so different from the prequals than the original triology?

[Honolulu_Blue]

The horror... It's sad to see the Mighty Chewbacca become apart of the dreck and shite that these prequels are. I guess it's an attempt to give these films some dignity. Poor Chewie...

[Mega]

I can't see what people do like about the prequels. All of the acting is hollow and wooden (Even the charismatically Scottish Liam and Ewan are horrible in these movies), the story manages to be packed with plot holes and general confusion depite not going much of anywhere, and both of the thus released prequels have been in severe need of ruthless editing. That's before you even get into the embarassing mega gaffes like Jar Jar. If these movies didn't have "Star Wars" in the title the first one would have been out of theatres in a couple of weeks and the second one (if it ever happened) would have been straight to video. The prequels have thus far been somewhere between Battlefield Earth and Waterworld. :rolleyes:

[Vince]

Originally posted by sabotai
what is so different from the prequals than the original triology?

You have no Han Solo. As noted earlier in the thread, Mark Hammil as Luke Skywalker was also a poor actor portraying a whiny, emotional character, very similar to Anakin in the first three. However, in the original trilogy, Hammil was offset by the thrilling, exciting, and entertaining Harrison Ford as Han Solo. Ewan McGregor's Obi-Wan Kenobi doesn't quite cut it.

[moriarty]

Two words ... character development (or lack of it).

[Aylmar]

Hmm...I understand why people didn't like Episode I, but I'll never understand how people who say they like Star Wars don't like Episode II. The plot holes and continuity problems that plagued the first movie were either fixed (or set up to be fixed) in the second one. The story for the movie was pretty solid (for a campy space opera, which is all these movies are supposed to be anyway...) I also think that Ewan does a very good job of Alec Guiness-ing Obi-Wan.

In my mind, AOTC is easily on par with two out of the three movies in the original trilogy. Only ESB stands clearly above it.

[bamcgee]

So, slightly off-topic here, but I was going to reply to all this when a far more important question came to me.

In Return of the Jedi, when Luke is in the Throne Room and the Emperor is egging him on, I don't understand why killing the Emperor leads Luke to the Dark Side. He's killed hundreds of storm troopers, why is the Emperor different? Would killing Hitler mean that I am an evil man? Since Luke tried and failed, does that mean he's an incompetent evil man?

just wondering. C'mon, it's friday afternoon, cut me some slack.

[Franklinnoble]

Excellent point. I think, basically, that the whole Jedi Zen philosophy is that you can't kill people when you're angry - you're only allowed enlightened acts of murder.

So, basically, you can't whack anyone you hate or find particularly annoying.

Luke ALMOST killed Vader, but didn't completely give in to his anger. That left him on the good side. Then he threw away his lightsaber so the emperor could fuck him up while unarmed. That just makes him stupid.

[sachmo71]

Originally posted by mrskippy
I happened to like the prequels and not just because of my future wife ... Natalie Portman.

You know she's a liberal hollywood type, right? Also, she might have some...errr, alternate views on religion, too. Instead of saying she's your future wife, how about saying she's your future human sacrifice? Or stalking victim? Sniper target?

[VPI97]

Originally posted by moriarty
Two words ... character development (or lack of it). Bingo...in the orginals, people acually cared about stuff like the Luke/Leia/Han love triangle and the Luke/Vader = father/son angle....Obi Wan and Yoda were portrayed as deep characters and you cared about them. In the prequels, no one gives a crap about the characters....that's the director's fault.

Originally posted by moriarty
In Return of the Jedi, when Luke is in the Throne Room and the Emperor is egging him on, I don't understand why killing the Emperor leads Luke to the Dark Side. He's killed hundreds of storm troopers, why is the Emperor different? Would killing Hitler mean that I am an evil man? Since Luke tried and failed, does that mean he's an incompetent evil man?Stormtroopers were killed for survival....killing the Emperor would be a result of hatred.

[Franklinnoble]

Lucas shouldn't have written or directed any of the prequels. We'd have been better off if he had died 7 or 8 years ago and let someone competent take over the business of making Star Wars movies.

[HornedFrog Purple]

One of my nephews asked me that very question, and the best I could come up with was that Luke was supposed to fight the Emperor but not give into hatred. In this case evil would replace evil. Darth Vader kept saying he and Luke would rule the galaxy as father and son.

Hopefully the new movie will show what would have happened to Luke if he had gone the way his father did.

Edit: How do you guys think Lucas will handle the droid problem?

[AgPete]

Originally posted by moriarty
Two words ... character development (or lack of it).

Gotta go with Moriarity and VPI97. Star Wars was always about following our favorite characters and watching them develop in an epic saga of good vs. evil. We loved watching our favorite heroes explore the galaxy and experience terror from the Empire. Episodes IV-VI essentially featured the same people and when someone was introduced or cut from the movie there was a reason and it intertwined with the development of the rest of the characters.

I don't get that feeling with Episodes I-III. Darth Maul was a cool kung-fu Jedi, but what the hell was the point of introducing him? And why have Anakin Skywalker as an eight year old kid in the first movie? Do we really need to see every stage of his life? Did Lucas run out of ideas? As soon as Obi-Wan bit the dust, he had an integral part in the sequels, just what was the point of introducing Qui-Con Jin? (sp?) People may have hated Jar-Jar Binks, but there's another episode one filler and pointless character. The great battle between student and mentor (Anakin and Obi-Wan) is only briefly covered because we had to watch an entire movie (Episode I) in which Obi-Wan doesn't even give a shit about Anakin.

Carrie Fisher was so much more talented than Natalie Portman as an actress. Now I do think Mark Hammill wasn't as good as the guy who plays Anakin Skywalker but the first three movies did have Harrison Ford. That's the sad part, there's so much talent in the prequels - Liam Neeson, Samuel L. Jackson, Ewan McGregor, (and I used to think Natalie Portman was a good actress :p ) but the movies just feel flat. I feel like I'm watching a CGI fest that was only made to put some extra money in Lucas' bank account and give a half-ass background story for Star Wars fans.

To be fair, I think the Star Wars prequels are better than a lot of the F/X popcorn flicks we watch in the summers. But considering how great the first three Star Wars flicks were, they're a huge disappointment. :(