[QUOTE= Mister Rik]
Was Luke ever given a rank? I don’t recall hearing him called anything but “Luke” or “Skywalker”. What about Chewbacca?
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=RikWriter]
He was referred to as “Commander Skywalker” on at least one occasion.
[/QUOTE]
Hey, the Wookiee wants to be called Commander Skywalker, you’d damn well better call him that. 
[QUOTE=Terrifel]
However, I feel strongly that Lucas later turned to Muppetry as a substitute for good dialogue.
[/QUOTE]
You said muppets when the word I think you meant to use was Ewoks.
[QUOTE=Illuminatiprimus]
You said muppets when the word I think you meant to use was Ewoks.
[/QUOTE]
Well, what is an Ewok, if not a Muppet with a midget inside?
[QUOTE=Terrifel]
Well, what is an Ewok, if not a Muppet with a midget inside?
[/QUOTE]
The use of the word “Muppet” in criticism for dumbed down entertainment really disparages the ongoing impressive work done by the Jim Henson Company. Yoda was the only Jim Henson Company creation contributed to any of the Star Wars films.
The Ewoks were not Muppets. Jabba the Hutt was not a Muppet. Jar Jar was not a Muppet. If you’re going to suggest that a project was ruined by Muppets, is it so much to ask that you limit your examples to projects that actually contain Muppets as your focal point of criticism?
[QUOTE=Lust4Life]
I think it would have made a very interesting story if Luke had of nailed Leia and maybe have a few kids by her and THEN find out that she was his sister.
But its always the same,offer Hollywood an original plotline and they look at you like your mad or something!
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think that George had the balls (or more likely the vision) to have his Kwisatz Haderach be the product of incest.
[QUOTE=Illuminatiprimus]
… Ewoks.
[/QUOTE]
And fuck you verrry much for that George.
“Hey I just discovered this great little book about these little fuzzy critters that inhabit a planet being exploited by a colonial power and nobody thinks they’re very important but it turns out that …”
“WE ARE NOT MAKING A EWOK MOVIE”
“Bbbut they’re not Ewoks …”.
CMC +fnord!
[QUOTE=bienville]
The use of the word “Muppet” in criticism for dumbed down entertainment really disparages the ongoing impressive work done by the Jim Henson Company. Yoda was the only Jim Henson Company creation contributed to any of the Star Wars films.
The Ewoks were not Muppets. Jabba the Hutt was not a Muppet. Jar Jar was not a Muppet. If you’re going to suggest that a project was ruined by Muppets, is it so much to ask that you limit your examples to projects that actually contain Muppets as your focal point of criticism?
[/QUOTE]
Ah, but you have missed my point. I do not suggest that the franchise was ruined by Muppets. I suggest that the franchise was ruined by Lucas succumbing to the temptation of Muppetry’s siren song. There may have been little direct input from the Henson crew, but the seed was planted in Lucas’ head by Frank Oz and company that special effects could substitute for actors. And that seed sporulated into the fungus garden of ROTJ and the prequels.
So, yes: Lucas’ hard-on for Muppetry is directly to blame for slug-Jabba, Jar-Jar and the Ewoks. And don’t even pretend you aren’t aware that Muppeteer Tim Rose operated Salacious Crumb. We’ve all seen the effects specials by now. You can’t run from the shame forever.
ETA: Looking back, I guess I did suggest earlier that the franchise was ruined by Muppets. Opps. Anyhoo… I hope the thrust of my hijack is clearer now, anyway.
[QUOTE=bienville]
Yoda was the only Jim Henson Company creation contributed to any of the Star Wars films.
[/QUOTE]
It was a Frank Oz and Stuart Freeborn creation, and only tangentially connected to the Muppets and Jim Henson.