Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Han Solo To Get His Own Star Wars Movie Prequel

Posted by Soulskill on from the and-so-it-begins dept.

New submitter alaskana writes: According to Starwars.com, Han Solo will be getting his own movie prequel. The film will purportedly tell the story of a young Han Solo and how he came to be the wily smuggler that shows up in Star Wars: Episode IV A New Hope. The film is set to be directed by Christopher Miller and Phil Lord (of The Lego Movie fame) and written by Lawrence and Jon Kasdan. Get your popcorn and tickets ready, as the movie is set to debut May 25, 2018.

227 comments

  1. Fuck That! by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Funny

    Fuck that! I want Jar Jar Binks' background story, and how he came to have the death sentence placed on him by Boss Rugor Nas.

    Can you imagine a movie populated completely by Gungans! Meesah think it vewry vewry good!

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    1. Re:Fuck That! by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Can you imagine a movie populated completely by Gungans! Meesah think it vewry vewry good!

      You forgot c3po and r2d2, who must be in every movie no matter how hard you have to strain.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Fuck That! by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      So, wait . . . does this new movie have a line where Han Solo says to Jar Jar, "I am your father" . . . ?

      Or is it the other way around, and Jar Jar says to Han Solo, "I am your father" . . . ?

      I guess there still are a lot of plot twists and storyline shifts that they can milk out of this franchise.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    3. Re:Fuck That! by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      Meesa thinking Han movie going to be mooie mooie good! Gonna have meesah and Han fighting all the bad guys!

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:Fuck That! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      r2d2 was designed to (reluctantly) blow c3po.

    5. Re:Fuck That! by JBMcB · · Score: 1

      Along with a dozen jabba the hutts arguing about tariffs.

      --
      My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    6. Re:Fuck That! by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Well, if they make it a sequel and make the torture scene where he gets disassembled, burned, etc. 90% of the total length, I am all for it...

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    7. Re:Fuck That! by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Not if you cared to read the canon books.
      I, for one, would love to see an entire saga dedicated to the Yuuzhan Vong invasion and subsequent defeat. Now, THAT is an epic string of stories.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    8. Re:Fuck That! by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Funny

      Great, so we end up with Darth Binks.

      NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    9. Re:Fuck That! by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      In the first Han is the father but in the reboot the writer has the tachyon field reversed so Jar Jar is the father.

    10. Re:Fuck That! by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      A good, a Star Trek-Star Wars mashup. I like the scene where Riker and Han get in a fight over a scantily clad Troi, as Jabba's band plays Born To Be Wild. Admiral Kirk finally wins the day by forcing Jabba's protocol droid into a logic loop that causes its head to explode, bringing down Jabba's palace.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    11. Re:Fuck That! by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      There was already an Ewoks movie, so there's strong precedent and your idea will probably happen at some point.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    12. Re:Fuck That! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None of the books are canon, nor is any of the extended universe. When Disney bought Lucasfilm they stated that only the Star Wars films are considered canon. It's likely that Han Solo will have a completely different back story from the one he had prior to the sale.

    13. Re:Fuck That! by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      Then Futurama spoof it nd they're both each other's father in a weird loop deal.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    14. Re:Fuck That! by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 2

      Classic lines:
      "Meesa fin' yoosa lacka fait disturbin!" "Da Emperor he not as forgiving as meesa." "Meesa da masta now!"

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    15. Re:Fuck That! by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      Intresting plot twist: Do they use some "time-travel"-mechanic to explain how Disney can change the past when something was declared as "canon"?

      --
      bickerdyke
    16. Re:Fuck That! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None of the extended universe stuff was ever considered hard canon and now that Disney OWNS Star Wars, they can do whatever they want with it. They say that only the films are canon, so only the films are canon.

    17. Re: Fuck That! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm waiting for the musical where Sigourney Weaver is Darth Vader and she's portrayed as the good guy.

    18. Re: Fuck That! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'd also like to see a spinoff where the plot revolves around an imprisoned Jabba helping a Republic detective catch a serial killer. Yoda could be the villian and it would be called 'Silence of the Tauntauns'. "On its skin the lotion it puts, or the hose again it gets".

    19. Re: Fuck That! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh man, awesome. You win the internets for today.

    20. Re:Fuck That! by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Most of the books were written before Disney bought Lucasfilm and they "were" canon at the time. Maybe shit has changed, I was never interested in the political footwork though so I couldn't care less.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    21. Re: Fuck That! by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      That may actually be the funniest thing I've read in several months! Bravo, sir, bravo.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    22. Re:Fuck That! by Iniamyen · · Score: 1

      The fact that people even care what's "canon" sometimes boggles my mind. You shouldn't ever get invested into a fictional universe to that degree. The IP owners will do whatever the hell will make you give them more money, so having any personal investment in these types of decisions really just makes you a pawn.

    23. Re:Fuck That! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lets have that with the Disney Bambi style animation. The softly flowing ears, the ears!

    24. Re:Fuck That! by Translation+Error · · Score: 1

      This makes me very angry. Very angry, indeed.

      --
      When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
    25. Re:Fuck That! by Ramze · · Score: 2

      He who controls the franchise controls its universe!

      So, yeah... generally the new owners get to retcon whatever they choose as they produce new canon content.

      It's not without precedent. Heck, even the Catholics decided to retcon their religion on multiple occasions by declaring previously canon books as heretical.

    26. Re:Fuck That! by antdude · · Score: 1

      Too late!

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    27. Re:Fuck That! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not a matter of being invested in a fictional universe, it's a matter of determining what is official and what isn't. Without that distinction, even fanfic could be considered official.

    28. Re: Fuck That! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're easily amused.

    29. Re:Fuck That! by Keybounce · · Score: 2

      Great, so we end up with Darth Binks.

      NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

      _General_ Binks is the most capable person the pro-republic forces have. Darths and Droids for citation.

    30. Re: Fuck That! by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      As are you, apparently.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    31. Re: Fuck That! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll take that weak backlash as a tacit admission.

    32. Re: Fuck That! by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Of what, that you come on a day old thread and amuse yourself by mocking other people?

      Like I said, you are the one that appears easily amused.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    33. Re: Fuck That! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are also easily angered.

  2. GRR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OAAN!! Prequel, postquel, remake, cartoons... all utter crap.

    1. Re:GRR by jellomizer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I tend to agree. The Star Wars (And Star Trek) Universe needs to be put to an end.
      Star Trek was a reflections of the 1960's and 1970's
      Star Wars is a Reflection of the 1970's and 1980's
      Star Trek TNG, Was a reflection of the 1980 and 1990's
      Star Trek vs TNG, did a decent job modernizing they did it by in essence mostly ignoring the original series (especially after the first season, where it was a bit too much like the original)

      But as time went on they kept on building new and new additions and created a universe that is now dated by today's standard.

      When they made Star Wars Episodes 1-3 they sucked, because we had to try to implement a modern style to an old film.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:GRR by roc97007 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      > When they made Star Wars Episodes 1-3 they sucked, because we had to try to implement a modern style to an old film.

      Hm. And why did we have to do that?

      They sucked for a variety of reasons -- casting, plot, dialog, but they also sucked because there seemed to be a rule that every square inch of screen needed to be squirming with cutesy protoplasm or cutesy robotics. Agreed, the original Star Wars was a 1970's take on 1930's SF serials, but the prequels were... I dunno what. Really expensive self parody, I guess. And not the good kind.

      Ignoring all the other things for a minute, a "style" like the original film -- sparse, concise, with callbacks to older serials but without overdoing it, might have been less unpleasant to watch.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    3. Re:GRR by ubrgeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > When they made Star Wars Episodes 1-3 they sucked, because we had to try to implement a modern style to an old film.

      Wait ... you were able to narrow it down to one reason?

      --
      Bark less. Wag more.
    4. Re:GRR by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Every time I watch them, I come up with another reason to loathe them. Mind you, it's been about five years since the last viewing of any Star Wars film, so I'll probably have forgotten half the reasons the prequels stunk so very very badly.

      I remember clearly watching The Phantom Menace and realizing the extent of the suckage when C3PO turns out to be Darth Vader's droid. I was still reeling from the midichlorians nonsense, and then that. Of course, by the time pod-racer video game advertisement had taken up most of the second act, I realized that George Lucas wasn't just a greedy bastard, but well and truly had no fucking idea how to make an at least enjoyable film anymore. Two more prequels and the last Indiana Jones movie convinced me that Lucas was done even as an action-adventure director (the latter demonstrated that he had lost even the basic concept of pacing).

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    5. Re:GRR by roc97007 · · Score: 0

      This.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    6. Re:GRR by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      > Bark less. Wag more.

      ...and when they lean down to pet you, go for the throat.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    7. Re:GRR by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 2

      Then why did you keep watching them? I've seen each of the original three once and have no desire to watch them again. I don't find them that good. I last at most 10 minutes into Episode 1 when it was on TV.

    8. Re:GRR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those aren't "the original three" though derp.

    9. Re:GRR by quenda · · Score: 1

      The Han Solo prequel could have been good, if only they'd hired Vince Gilligan to write it.

    10. Re:GRR by tlolczyk · · Score: 1

      Then go Machete order, or at least go with The Phantom Edit.

    11. Re:GRR by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      Why was this marked troll? Anybody who has actually watched any of the "behind the scenes" stuff on Lucas knows 1-3 might as well have been parody as it was done by someone who no longer understood his own films and was as clueless as any ad exec!

      I mean you thought the ALIENS in Crystal Skull was bad? Lucas wanted to make the movie in a Haunted House, like a 1940s slapstick! Picture Indy with a bumbling black sidekick doing the "lawdy I sees a spook!" bit and that is about the level we are talking here. I'm sure you can find Spielberg talking about it on YouTube, and just look at his face when he mentions it, its that "DaFuq was he thinking?" look times ten.

      Look I really REALLY liked classic Lucas, hell I even enjoyed Howard The Duck for its 80s cheesy goodness but lets face facts folks....too many years with too much money just killed whatever creative spark the man had. Seriously watch the behind the scenes stuff on the prequels, the man just didn't have what it takes to cook up good sci-fi by that point and it showed. You don't have to watch Mr Plinkett to see that damned near every shot in that movie was just plain bad, bad dialog, bad blocking, too much filler in the background, bad script, I'm sorry but the talent that came up with 4-6? Just wasn't there anymore.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    12. Re:GRR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Red Letter Media has a good, if somewhat deranged, analysis of what is wrong with the Phantom Menace. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxKtZmQgxrI

    13. Re:GRR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Star Trek is alive and well continuing the prime (real) universe into the 25th century in Star Trek Online. It's kind of sad that an MMO has a better story than 99% of all modern movies.

    14. Re:GRR by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm sorry but the talent that came up with 4-6? Just wasn't there anymore.

      The talent that made 4-6 was Kasdan, even though he wasn't there for 4. What was the best Indy film? The only one Kasdan was involved in. Kasdan is back, and that might just save the franchise.

      Lucas's defence for Crystal Skull was that viewers didn't understand his source material, and that's true, but in a way irrelevant. Lucas grew up reading adventure comics that mixed magic and aliens and mysticism and everything else on a whim -- the legacy of that lives on in Marvel's current cinematic line-up where the god of thunder works alongside a man in a homemade robotic exoskeleton, a WWII hero on steroids and a bloody archer to fight off a menace from another world who have interbred with humans to create an ancient bloodlne of superpowered beings. Head to the comic world and you could even add in a sorcerer and a genetic mutant, then send them all through time to face off against the grandfather of the devil. I like to think of Crystal Skull as the sequel to Temple of Doom. You remember Temple of Doom, right? Using a life-raft as a parachute/sledge combo, a ridiculously twisty mine shaft booby-trapped with an ugly great boulder etc. That wasn't Kasdan -- that was Lucas. What we all rmmber as Indy is Raiders of the lost Ark, where Kasdan really paid homage to the source material while constructing a genuinely good film. Over-the-top Nazis, wisecracks and character interplay, even the scene with the creepy gestapo guy reaching towards the camera after burning his hand -- all pulled straight from pulp comics, and deftly done. Crucially, it kept all the magic and mysticism to the very end, and Jones cynical to the last, so there was some kind of reveal and change. The Last Crusade was a sequel to Raiders, but somewhat formulaic and slightly overplayed. But again, Nazis, and no magic until the end, after facing all sorts of mechanical pseudo-magic.

      So I have some hope for the Star Wars sequels. However, I'm not sure about a Han origin story. Han shot first. Han was rehabilitated by Luke and Leia. So Han should be a bastard, but current Hollywood narratives don't work that way. Now there are goodies and baddies.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    15. Re:GRR by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Lucas was trying to analyse his own writing in a technical way. A New Hope was Hidden Fortress + WWII dogfighting. He tried to make... I don't know, something + Ben Hur chariot racing for EpI. But then he made it very unlike the Ben Hur chariot race. Why was the scene in Ben Hur so powerful? Because it was realistic -- in order to get the riders to take more risks, the stunt director turned it into a real race by offering prize money to the first finisher. Several horses were killed because of that. Yet Lucas went out of his wy to make the pod race entirely unrealistic. All that remained of the chariot theme was the stupid little pods that were tethered in a way vaguely reminiscent of horses. He also managed to tell us that the rebels and the Empire were complete morons for manning their fighter fleets with the species with the worst reactions in the galaxy, a species who can't even win a bloody car race if they're not blessed with a demi-god level of Jedi powers.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    16. Re:GRR by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

      The deranged presentation is genius. It takes what would otherwise be a very dry, academic, and accurate dissection of the complete turds that are the three prequel movies and manages to make it entertaining.

    17. Re:GRR by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      I disagree. At least for Star Trek. That setting is wide (not to say bland...) enough to allow for any type of story. Heck, they managed to mash a Picard-Die-Hard-Action-flick and a Back-To-The-Future-comedy into a single movie and it worked!

      Each ST series had a unique style and tone. TOS with their "monster of the week" 60's-Sci-Fi, TNG ("we have the moral duty to...") and Ds9 with the longer, almost soap-like story arcs. Add to this the regular oddball-episode dabbling into absolutely non-Science Fiction areas. (VOY combining the worst of the now boring "monster of the week" with Picards worst speeches about moral dilemmas)

      You could have made tons of movies and series that could have stood on their own, but in a desperate try to tap into the fanbase by adding charackters with the same name as TOS crew, they went down the "prequel"-trap that rewrites canon an turns a endless, open playground story-universe into a tightly tangled mess of alternative "timelines".

      --
      bickerdyke
    18. Re:GRR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is not really any option beyond the Machete order. If you just ditch episode I-III you end up without the intended timespan between episode V and VI which takes away much of the situation V ends in.
      The whole idea of turning Luke to the dark side in episode VI also lacks credibility and always has.
      By bringing in at least episode III before VI with Anakin telling Obi-Wan "You underestimate my power!" just before you get a nice tie-in with Luke wearing a dark robe and telling Jabba almost the same thing.
      The Machete order isn't only to make episode II and III watchable (You can ditch episode I, it doesn't add anything to the story and omitting it doesn't create any inconsistencies or clarities that didn't exist before.) it actually fixes some issues with episode VI that justifies the existence of the prequels.

    19. Re:GRR by ubrgeek · · Score: 1

      Nah. Why wait when you can jump ;)

      --
      Bark less. Wag more.
    20. Re:GRR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Regarding the Prequel Trilogy:
      Casting: Decent, but not completely exceptional.
      Plot: Solid, but not flawless. On par with the original trilogy.
      Dialog: Weak, but no weaker than Episode IV.

      Diagnostic results:
      Lucas can't write dialog. He got help with that for Empire and Jedi, but by the time the prequels were being written and filmed, people were too awed by his earlier success to be willing to actually *remind* him that he needed help writing dialog.

    21. Re:GRR by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      > Lucas's defence for Crystal Skull was that viewers didn't understand his source material, and that's true, but in a way irrelevant. [...]

      Enh. In the seventies and eighties I developed a taste for '30's pulps, adventure stories and early "golden age" science fiction. (Doc Savage, The Avenger, various works by A E Van Voight and Doc Smith, lots of others) (This also led to "hard boiled" detective novels, which resulted in reading all the works of Hammett and Chandler, and by extension ("Perchance to dream") now delving into Robert Parker. Side issue. Never mind.) Anyway, I'm very familiar with the genre he was trying to exploit. I thought the movie was a mishmash of painfully executed tropes that didn't really fit well together. There was no "aha" moment, (which the film DESPERATELY needed) and way too many "WTF" moments.

      Let me be clear: This is not the fault of the tropes he was trying to execute. It was because they didn't really fit together, and because he executed them clumsily and in a rather ham-fisted manner. Everything about this film seemed ... I dunno, unfinished. (Especially the script.) Even the digital effects were not up to the state of the art at the time.

      So no, the issue with the fourth Indiana Jones film was not that it was about ancient aliens in south america (oops, spoilers) but that it was a stupid story about ancient aliens in south america.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    22. Re:GRR by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      I agree with you on that. Kasdan wrote good stories... Lucas didn't. That's the main thing. However, I do think using aliens was misjudged, because Indy is Indy, not its source material.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    23. Re:GRR by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      > Lucas can't write dialog. He got help with that for Empire and Jedi, but by the time the prequels were being written and filmed, people were too awed by his earlier success to be willing to actually *remind* him that he needed help writing dialog.

      This is absolutely true, but I'm not sure I agree with your other assertions. Casting: Hayden Christensen. Jake Lloyd. Must I go on? Plot: Trade agreements. Senate sub-committees. Dialog: "Yippee".

      So yeah, we agree on the dialog. And we agree on *why* the dialog sucked. And why, say, one of the actors, or crew, didn't step in and say "Hey, George. Nobody speaks like this." But I can't agree that this was the only issue.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    24. Re:GRR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two more prequels and the last Indiana Jones movie convinced me that Lucas was done even as an action-adventure director (the latter demonstrated that he had lost even the basic concept of pacing).

      Huhwut? Lucas didn't direct Crystal Skull, Spielberg did.

  3. More non-George content? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Let us hope so!

    1. Re:More non-George content? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I thought Lucas was now basically just a consultant, and didn't have much involvement in actual story development; sort of a Gene Roddenberry, except he ended the Great Bird of a Galaxy Far Far Away ended up being many times richer than the mere Great Bird of our humble galaxy.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:More non-George content? by roc97007 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Put in more little robots! And I want cutesy creatures here, and here, and here and here and here and here and here. The main character has to grab a fruit with his tongue! Kids love that!

      The main character is human, George.

      Well, make him something else then. With a funny accent. Kids love that.

      Shut up, George.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    3. Re:More non-George content? by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Funny

      Make more theme worlds, because apparently the universe is populated by jungle worlds, metal worlds, forest worlds, magma worlds, ice worlds and desert worlds.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:More non-George content? by roc97007 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Point. If Lucas properly understood scale, the entire series could have taken place on one planet.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    5. Re:More non-George content? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But then you skip all the flying through space stuff. You know, the fun part!

      Theme planets have been a trope of sci-fi since the early days anyway, pretty difficult to place the blame on George.

    6. Re:More non-George content? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      But Lucas put multiple theme worlds in each film. Episde IV had two, Episode V had 3, Episode VI had two. I'm trying to remember the prequels, I think Episode I had three, Episode II had three, and I can't even remember how how many Episode III had.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    7. Re:More non-George content? by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      If Lucas had been interested in realism, the entire series would've been boring. You want the asteroid chase in a realistic asteroid field where you never see an asteroid the whole time? Several years passing while they try to make it from Hoth to Bespin on sublight engines? Star Wars isn't speculative fiction, it's space opera.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    8. Re:More non-George content? by Swampash · · Score: 1

      Lethal Lava Land was the best bit of Ep3

    9. Re:More non-George content? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A New Hope had three. Tatooine (sand world), the Death Star (artificial world) and Yavin IV (forest moon).

      The Empire Strikes Back had three. Hoth (ice world), Dagobah (swamp world) and Bespin (gas giant world).

      Return of the Jedi had four. Tatooine (sand world), Dagobah (swamp world), Endor's moon (forest moon) and the Death Star II (artificial world).

      The Phantom Menace had three. Naboo (Earth-like world), Tatooine (sand world) and Coruscant (city world).

      Attack of the Clones had four. Coruscant (city world), Kamino (water world), Naboo (Earth-like world) and Geonosis (rocky world).

      Revenge of the Sith had twelve. Coruscant (city world), Utapau (plains and sinkhole world), Kashyyyk (forest world), Mygeeto (city world?), Felucia (jungle world), Cato Neimoidia (sky world), Saleucami (swamp world), Mustafar (magma world), Polis Massa (asteroid), Naboo (Earth-like world), Alderaan (mountain world) and Tatooine (sand world).

    10. Re:More non-George content? by Translation+Error · · Score: 1

      Sure, they could have set it all on Alderaan. As a bonus, the ending writes itself.

      --
      When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
  4. Re:Gov-a-mint by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Funny

    So you're thinking this would be a thinly-veiled allegorical retelling of Ron Paul's life? Maybe it can include a "staffer" writing anti-Wookie rants in Han's newsletter.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  5. FOr HOw LOng CAn ONe SUck A TIt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BEfore IT WIthers AWay?

    1. Re:FOr HOw LOng CAn ONe SUck A TIt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a brand-new sucker born every minute.

    2. Re:FOr HOw LOng CAn ONe SUck A TIt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a brand-new sucker born every minute.

      And half have tits...

  6. Maybe it'll be Bollux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (The name of a droid in the first of the Han Solo Adventures novels)

    1. Re:Maybe it'll be Bollux by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      "I am a protocol droid versed in six million forms of..."

      "Fuck that Golden Rod, tell that garbage motivator that I want twelve tons of sewage dropped on Lando's head."

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Maybe it'll be Bollux by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 2

      God, I really hope they follow the Han Solo Trilogy, 1: because I must have read them 10 times each as a teenager, and 2: because they are pretty decent, as far as Star Wars novels go, and did a good job of retconning all the weird shit Lucas did (the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs for example)

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
    3. Re:Maybe it'll be Bollux by NormAtHome · · Score: 1

      I was thinking the same thing, those three books by Brian Daly were pretty good although they take place after Han escapes from the mines with Chewie but before episode 4.

      My main concern is who are they going to get to play Han, and frankly the idea that Chris Pratt could play either Indiana Jones or Han Solo; that guy is just like Will Ferrell, a dope no matter how you slice it and he doesn't have the chops to play either character convincingly.

    4. Re:Maybe it'll be Bollux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God, I really hope they follow the Han Solo Trilogy, 1: because I must have read them 10 times each as a teenager

      It's some nice memories of your childhood you have there. It would be unfortunate if someone came along and ruined them for you.

    5. Re:Maybe it'll be Bollux by Keybounce · · Score: 1

      God, I really hope they follow the Han Solo Trilogy, 1: because I must have read them 10 times each as a teenager

      It's some nice memories of your childhood you have there. It would be unfortunate if someone came along and ruined them for you.

      "That'ssss a very nice memory you have there, it would be a shame if ssssomething happened to it"

  7. Kessel Run by galabar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As long as the have the Kessel Run, we'll all be satisfied.

    1. Re:Kessel Run by grimmjeeper · · Score: 1

      Good point. The Kessel run absolutely needs to be there for it to feel "complete".

    2. Re:kessel run by Forever+Wondering · · Score: 1

      Isn't a parsec a unit of distance and not of time?

      --
      Like a good neighbor, fsck is there ...
    3. Re:Kessel Run by harrkev · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The Kessel Run was covered in one of the novels. I am guessing that the novels are no longer canon.

      Actually, what IS the story? Supposedly the new movie covers the Solo kids based on what happened in the novels, but the prequals (1-3) totally crapped on the back story of Boba Fett.

      I also saw Chewy, but he died in one of the novels too.

      What is canon and what isn't?

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    4. Re:Kessel Run by grimmjeeper · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I suspect that they'll toss out everything and write a new story. That way you don't have to compensate the authors of the books for their ideas. But that's just the cynic in me speaking.

      I would be surprised, however, if they didn't at least cover Han meeting Chewie and them doing the Kessel Run (completely rewritten, of course). I wonder if, in his new story, he will have been an officer in the Imperial fleet when he rescued Chewie or if they're going to rewrite that too.

      I hope it will be interesting to watch, regardless of what direction they go in.

    5. Re:kessel run by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1

      Isn't Jurassic actually the period BEFORE dinosaurs ruled the earth, and therefore the movie should've been called "Cretaceous Park"?

      Never underestimate the ability of entertainment people to change facts around if they think it sounds better.

    6. Re:kessel run by neminem · · Score: 1

      Yes it is. Which is why everyone makes fun of it. The out of universe explanation is that the guy who wrote that didn't know what he was talking about, and nobody else did either until it was too late to fix it. The (total retcon) in-universe explanation, which is legit in that it is way super cool, even though it was also very obviously a retroactive ass-pull fix, is: the Kessel Run requires you to weave through a giant pile of black holes and other nasties you wouldn't want to hit. Therefore, in order to optimize time, what you're *really* optimizing is your pathfinding algorithm; thus, smuggers started talking about how fast someone completed said run in units of distance, because that's what they were measuring.

    7. Re:kessel run by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh stop... This is, after all, fiction. Stop confusing it with facts...

    8. Re:kessel run by grimmjeeper · · Score: 2

      According to the story they made up after the movie with the one line, the Kessel run is made through a cluster of black holes. While there are charted routes in and out, some smugglers chance taking a shorter route so they can shave time off the run. And Solo, being a hero in the story, is one of the smugglers who managed to safely find a shorter route. It's a not-entirely-clumsy way to sweep under the rug what amounts to a line of bad dialog.

    9. Re:kessel run by Defenestrar · · Score: 1

      While it's not cannon anymore (i.e. from a book), stating it as a distance was a demonstration of the ship's power such that it could fly so close to a black hole cluster that it could do the traditional smuggling run in a distance of less than twelve parsecs.

    10. Re:kessel run by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, but he is bragging that he did the kessel run in the time it would take the fastest ship to travel 12 parsecs, but the actual distance is probably 15 parsecs or something. it is not a big stretch at all to mix time and distance for FTL travel.

    11. Re:Kessel Run by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      I want to believe that the prequels never happened.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    12. Re:kessel run by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      I think "ass-pull fix" is my new favorite term.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    13. Re:kessel run by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I don't really get it. In the same cantina scene, our fearless retconner George "I Don't A Flying Fuck What Fans Think" Lucas got Greedo to shoot first, but he didn't bother altering a small awkward bit of dialogue. But then again Lucas never met a piece of dialog so horrible that it didn't end up in the final cut.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    14. Re:Kessel Run by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Kessel Run was covered in one of the novels. I am guessing that the novels are no longer canon.

      I don't get why they would be, seeing that any books about the Star Wars universe were written after the first movie was made. They can do whatever they want, no obligation to adhere to some fan-invented 'canon'.

    15. Re:kessel run by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Padme: We used to come here for school retreat. We would swim to that island every day. I love the water. We used to lie out on the sand and let the sun dry us and try to guess the names of the birds singing.

      Anakin: I don't like sand. It's coarse and rough and irritating and it gets everywhere. Not like here. Here everything is soft and smooth.

      <cringe>

    16. Re:kessel run by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Oh god. The whole romance angle in the second prequel was a masterstroke of hackneyed, butchered, gawdawful and outright flat dialog. The first time around I was just too overawed by the awfulness to know what was hitting me, but the second watching was where the full extent of Lucas's incapability of writing decent dialogue.

      Even better was Padme's death scene in the final prequel:

      MEDICAL DROID: Medically, she is completely healthy. For reasons we can't explain, we are losing her.

      OBI-WAN: She's dying?

      MEDICAL DROID: We don't know why. She has lost the will to live. We need to operate quickly if we are to save the babies.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    17. Re:kessel run by mrchaotica · · Score: 0

      Isn't Jurassic actually the period BEFORE dinosaurs ruled the earth, and therefore the movie should've been called "Cretaceous Park"?

      No. Dinosaurs ruled during the Cretaceous and the Jurassic (and the Triassic, depending on your definitions), and some of the famous dinosaurs (e.g. Stegosaurus) were extinct by the beginning of the Cretaceous.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    18. Re:kessel run by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

      That last scene was horrible on many levels. Here you have Padme - a strong female character - who suddenly decides that she's going to die if she can't have her man. And does. Completely disregarding that she has two babies on the way that need her. Nope. Her man's gone to the Dark Side so it's time for her to die. Every time I think of that scene, I want to rip Jar-Jar's tongue from his mouth and use it to whip Lucas. (Bonus: Without his tongue, perhaps Jar-Jar won't be able to speak.)

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    19. Re:Kessel Run by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did a little research so here you go - cannon. I hope this helps!

    20. Re:kessel run by pushing-robot · · Score: 1

      For once he was cleverer than we give him credit for:

      http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/S...

      HAN
      Fast ship? You've never heard of the
      Millennium Falcon?

      BEN
      Should I have?

      HAN
      It's the ship that made the Kessel
      run in less than twelve parsecs!

      Ben reacts to Solo's stupid attempt to impress them with
      obvious misinformation.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    21. Re:kessel run by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The actual explanation is that Kessels are notoriously hard to move. They barely trudge along most of the time.

      You usually have to chase them for at least 13 parsecs to make them run...

    22. Re:kessel run by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Except he credits the ship for getting it done and not himself.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    23. Re: kessel run by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It never needed to be fixed because no one gets that scene. Han is clearly bullshitting, and Obi-Wan sees right through it. It goes along with Han being a scoundrel, he lies.

      For some reason, just like him shooting first, a crazy backstory had to be invented where Han wasn't lying and his nonsense was true.

    24. Re:Kessel Run by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can do whatever they want, no obligation to adhere to some fan-invented 'canon'.

      They aren't even going to adhere to the canon set by the first movie.
      In episode IV Han Solo clearly states that he doesn't believe in fairy tales like the force.
      Are you telling me that they are going to make a movie about Han Solo where he doesn't encounter any Jedi or Sith?
      It wouldn't surprise me if they made it so that Yoda gave Solo a ring that temporarily gives him the force.

    25. Re:Kessel Run by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      Canon is a big gun for blowing holes in things. Canons often fail and blow themselves to bits. I how this metaphor is self-explanatory.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    26. Re:Kessel Run by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      I've actually always hated the explanation in the novels. It feels so contrived.

      I prefer the explanation supported by the officially published script. "Ben reacts to Solo's stupid attempt to impress them with obvious misinformation", so Han was just making up random jargon in order to impress the rube.

      Obviously Lucas simply had no idea that a parsec was a unit of distance, but the explanation still makes sense.

    27. Re:kessel run by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      And completely disregarding the fact that Leia knew her mother, who we assume married some dude on Alderaan after splitting from Anakin. She was very sad... as well you might be when the love of your life decides he wants to crush the galaxy under his shiny black jackboots.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    28. Re:kessel run by Sique · · Score: 1

      Maybe there are shortcuts which require the ship to be exceptionally fast, because they open and close quite frequently?

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    29. Re:kessel run by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      What about strong and fast to stand the black holes both gravitational pull and forces on the hull?

      --
      bickerdyke
    30. Re:Kessel Run by coofercat · · Score: 1

      The thing I'd worry about is that they'll make him 'nice'. He's supposed to be the kind of guy that shoots first and the kind of guy that only an ex-jedi could sufficiently second-guess to trust. I'll bet they'll make him into someone who's basically a good guy that occasionally slips up with the odd victimless crime (but only because he's desperate).

      If he doesn't have to hose out the blood of the previous owners of the millennium falcon at least once in the film, it ain't worth watching ;-)

    31. Re:Kessel Run by Revarg · · Score: 1

      Canons often fail and blow themselves to bits.

      Really? Often? No. If you wish to stay with this canon metaphor, I think you'd be better off saying something along the lines of: "Poorly designed / manufactured canons blow themselves to bits." A properly designed and manufactured canon is capable of hitting its mark with ease, with absolutely no risk of self detonation.

    32. Re:Kessel Run by grimmjeeper · · Score: 1

      In the original back story, Han was an imperial officer who couldn't stand to see a wookie (Chewie) being abused so he freed Chewie and deserted. So there is a core "good guy" in him from earlier in his life. In order to survive as a smuggler, he had to suppress all that.

      I do agree that a "nice" Han Solo wouldn't play well in his prequel story, you can't completely cover up the core of who he is either. If they do it right, they can show him with a look of regret as he is driven to do the ruthless things he needs to do to survive. That way he can still be a badass but also a sympathetic hero at the same time.

    33. Re:Kessel Run by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He won the Millennium Falcon from Lando so you won't be seeing any blood

    34. Re:Kessel Run by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but I thought the previous owner to the Falcon was Lando, who lost it to Han in a card game.

    35. Re:Kessel Run by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's a shame they never made a sequel to Highlander.

    36. Re:Kessel Run by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. From the beginning Solo was the archetypal 'scoundrel with a heart of gold'.
      I'm hoping that the Disney release of the original trilogy on Blu Ray gets rid of the nonsense edit where Han shoots Greedo. It's a textbook case of self-defense, no need to change it to keep Han from looking like the 'bad guy' there.

    37. Re:Kessel Run by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As of Disney buying the franchise and announcing the new movies all the extended universe StarWars novels have been declared non-canon. The new canon is listed on this site.

    38. Re:Kessel Run by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, so long as you add 'properly maintained and loaded' to the list of descriptors as well.

      I can take a properly designed and manufactured canon and make it blow up quite readily by loading an over-sized slug with a quadruple powder load. If that fails, repeat with a self-tapping screw threaded into the end of the barrel.

    39. Re:kessel run by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > And Solo, being a hero in the story, is one of the smugglers who managed to safely find a shorter route

      Shorter route != fast ship

    40. Re:Kessel Run by roc97007 · · Score: 2

      it's a shame they never made a sequel to Highlander.

      Yes! That too.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    41. Re:Kessel Run by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      He won the Millennium Falcon from Lando so you won't be seeing any blood

      The ultimate victory is to win without any fighting. 8-)

      Shooting up the scenery just ruins the stuff that you would be winning.

    42. Re:Kessel Run by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      Traditional powder cannons are prone to user error. Loading the wrong size of ball, reloading while the barrel's above powder flashpoint etc... these things can damage the cannon and/or the user. Literary canon obviously isn't self-destructive, but it is highly, highly prone to user error.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    43. Re:Kessel Run by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      IIRC correctly, the "wrong size of ball" was a common problem prior to metrication, as armies would employ cannons acquired as the spoils of war, and their bore gauges were often fractionally different due to local definitions of the inch, leading to country A's cannonball jamming country B's cannon and ccracking the barrel upon ignition, and country B's cannonball flopping limply out of country A's barrel after all the explosive force leaking round the sides.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    44. Re:kessel run by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perfect. You couldn't ask for a better demonstration than Spy Handler's exactly WHY the studios don't have to care about getting facts right in the movies!

  8. Han shoots first by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 4, Funny

    [knock, knock, knock on bathroom door]
    Young Han: Mom! I'm busy! Go away!

    1. Re:Han shoots first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      [knock, knock, knock on bedroom door]
      Young Han: Mom!
      Chewbacca: Raarghhh!

    2. Re:Han shoots first by ClickOnThis · · Score: 2

      [Han's mom walks in]
      Mom: That's no moon!

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    3. Re:Han shoots first by Noah+Haders · · Score: 2

      it's a trap!

    4. Re:Han shoots first by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 4, Funny

      And now you know why his childhood nickname was "Hand Solo".

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  9. Question by grimmjeeper · · Score: 1

    Are they going to incorporate anything from the Brian Daily prequel books (Han Solo at Stars' End, Han Solo's Revenge, Han Solo and the Lost Legacy) and the like, or are they going to start with a clean slate and write a new history? While I enjoyed the books, either direction would be fine by me as I'm not a rabid purist. I just am interested in knowing what they plan to do with the story.

    1. Re:Question by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      Though for some it will feel as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced, I think the Extended Universe is dead in the water. No way Abrams is going to be constrained by what amounts to maybe a small handful of passable SF novels and an overwhelming amount of utter crap.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Question by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      When Lucas was in charge, he just made up crap on the fly. I don't think with Disney in charge that they're going to be more protective of the lore and story lines than Lucas was.

    3. Re:Question by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      The only question is where they'll fit the singing animals in.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:Question by Defenestrar · · Score: 1

      The Mos Eisley Cantina... Duh!

    5. Re:Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you kidding? You know who owns Marvel Studios, right? The company that's been putting out about a dozen movies over the last 5-6 years inter-linked in various (and non-conflicting canon) ways, leading up to Infinity War?

    6. Re:Question by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Kinda like the movies.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    7. Re:Question by MightyMartian · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, he will be constrained by the Prequels.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    8. Re:Question by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Will he? Something I liked about Jurassic World is how it ignored the second and third sequels. Something I liked about the most recent Terminator film is that it completely ignored the third and fourth sequels.

      The way I'd work it is, anything that happened before "Did you hear that? They shut down the main reactor. We'll be destroyed for sure." may or may not have happened, but we don't talk about it. At all. Ever. Except for maybe an easter egg of JarJar's bones bleaching in the sun.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    9. Re:Question by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      I'm really hoping Disney will put out a series of Star Wars movies that tie together the way the Marvel movies do - that is, they stand on their own (for the most part) but also weave together into a vast universe that builds upon itself. If they do it right, we could enter a golden age for Star Wars fans. Maybe it will finally scrub THE FILMS THAT MUST NOT BE NAMED from our memories.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    10. Re:Question by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      Han Solo and the Lost Legacy

      Is that relly the title of a Han Solo book? When I read it, it's not the Star Wars theme I hear, but a certain other John Williams soundtrack, to a certain other Lucas/Ford film franchise. This makes me very dubious of the writer.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    11. Re:Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, they're hardly going to be any less protective of it, are they?

    12. Re:Question by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Except for maybe an easter egg of JarJar's bones bleaching in the sun.

      Or Jar Jar's corpse being served up to Jabba the Hut like a roast pig.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    13. Re:Question by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Except for maybe an easter egg of JarJar's bones bleaching in the sun.

      Or Jar Jar's corpse being served up to Jabba the Hut like a roast pig.

      Would have to be a flashback, but ok.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    14. Re:Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Something I liked about the most recent Terminator film is that it completely ignored the third and fourth sequels.

      So it ignores itself? Does that mean you get the same experience by not even watching it?

  10. kessel run by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will they show the story of how he completed the kessel run in less than 12 parsecs?

  11. Too bad they already axed the extended universe... by neminem · · Score: 1

    Because if I recall (though I haven't read it in forever), the previously-official-but-not-anymore Han Solo prequel story was actually a pretty fun story. It wasn't the Thrawn trilogy, but it was still pretty decent, and I would totally support there being a movie adaptation of it: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki...

    But again, not as much as I wanted to see Thrawn on the big screen. Star Wars the no-longer-extended-universe-that-has-no-Timothy-Zahn-in-it-anywhere is dead to me.

  12. I've got a bad feeling about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    nt

    1. Re:I've got a bad feeling about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You and your delusions of grandeuer.

  13. Another one not to watch... by RJFerret · · Score: 2

    A likely sanitized version of Han Solo? No thanks.

    1. Re:Another one not to watch... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      A likely sanitized version of Han Solo? No thanks.

      I'd rather kiss a wookie.... Wait a min, maybe THAT's the story?

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:Another one not to watch... by roc97007 · · Score: 4, Funny

      If they were smart, they'd have the character just blowing ten or fifteen creatures away before they had a chance to draw.

      "Han. You're still alive!"

      "I shot first."

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    3. Re:Another one not to watch... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Han Solo will likely be outed as gay. Not a bad thing, just following consumer trends in a galaxy very, very close.

    4. Re:Another one not to watch... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Star War fans have grown up. It would be a time to make a realistically dark backstory to create the character who only trusts his guns and cynicism. I can see by the power of millions of midichlorians that Disney will fail to deliver the goods.

    5. Re:Another one not to watch... by Keybounce · · Score: 1

      If they were smart, they'd have the character just blowing ten or fifteen creatures away before they had a chance to draw.

      "Han. You're still alive!"

      "I shot first."

      Leia: "Han, stop shooting first! We need to interrogate someone".
      (I think that's the quote from Darths and Droids)

  14. Bring out the cash cow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think it's safe to assume we'll be seeing dozens of mediocre Star Wars movies over the next 20 years.

    1. Re:Bring out the cash cow by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      Han Solo being chased by Minions? Oh wait, Minions is Universal...

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
  15. Uh-oh by mrsam · · Score: 4, Funny

    I have a bad feeling about this...

    (sorry...)

    1. Re:Uh-oh by maryjanety3 · · Score: 0

      I have a bad feeling about this...

      (sorry...)

      Smelly cat http://www.dailymotion.com/vid...

    2. Re:Uh-oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lucas has changed the star wars universe. Pray he does not change it further.

  16. Where's the Stainless Steel Rat movie? by uCallHimDrJ0NES · · Score: 1

    Come on, somebody make a good movie about a space smuggler. Licensed Star Wars is ruined. Does Disney own all space smugglers yet?

    --
    Cloudiot: A person who does not see offsite storage as a way to lose control over access to his or her own data.
    1. Re:Where's the Stainless Steel Rat movie? by Defenestrar · · Score: 0

      Stainless Steel Rat movies would be horrid. At least half their value was the way that the writing style was an extension of the protagonist's persona. You'd never get that on film. You might be able to pull each story off in a fast paced forty-five minute episode - make a mini-series out of the books, but you'd still lose a lot. If they want content for the big screen - Vorkosigan is the way to go! Much more of Bujold would translate to film.

    2. Re:Where's the Stainless Steel Rat movie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Inskipp! Is that you?!

  17. Personally... by Type44Q · · Score: 2

    Personally, I suspect this means we can expect to see Batman make an appearance.

  18. Everything is awesome! by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

    I can't wait for the musical numbers!

  19. Use the EU for jeebus sake! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I really hope they at least borrow from the han solo trilogy. That'll make for some good movie. Not sure how they do the brainwashed spice miner thing, maybe pheromones instead of singing.

  20. Solo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Han Solo has nothing on Starlord.

  21. Sooooo OVER STAR WARS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was great when it came out in 1977, but by the end of the third movie I was over it. Then the last 3 movies started badly, and got worse with each one. Who else is over Star Wars?

  22. already been done by Swampash · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The movie was called "Serenity"

    1. Re:already been done by Radish03 · · Score: 2

      It was sweet when Leia tore up those reavers with the force, but man, that part where Chewie took a harpoon to the chest...

    2. Re:already been done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then Wash and Book's ghosts smiled as the Ewoks danced.

  23. Oversaturation by Maltheus · · Score: 1

    None of the Disney Star Wars movies have come out yet, and I already feel sick of them. Why don't they try just one movie first and see how it does?

    1. Re:Oversaturation by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Because they paid Lucas the equivalent of the GDP of some small countries. They're going to milk this baby for every penny, and they know those of us of that special generation from about 43 to 55 will pay to see whatever crap they stick a Star Wars logo on. Yes, I admit it, I'm that pathetic.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Oversaturation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't they try just one movie first and see how it does?

      $4,050,000,000 is why. Disney put a lot of dough into Star Wars and they're paying dividends and/or interest on that capital, whether it earns anything or not. In the business world — where grownups have to deal with these realities — that provides a lot of motivation. You can be very sure the next 10+ years of Star Wars is on paper somewhere right now.

      Doubtless our endemic cohort of market/capitalism haters are mashing "Reply to This" to point out how tragic all of this is. As you read their spiels try to remember that the alternative they offer — whether they know it or not — is dreary, inoffensive, publicly funded dreck, with the occasional critically acclaimed outlier involving some grievance or debauchery. The sort of world they would inflict has never produced anything half as great as Star Wars. It can't, by nature.

    3. Re:Oversaturation by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      As you read their spiels try to remember that the alternative they offer — whether they know it or not — is dreary, inoffensive, publicly funded dreck, with the occasional critically acclaimed outlier involving some grievance or debauchery. The sort of world they would inflict has never produced anything half as great as Star Wars. It can't, by nature.

      I offer you BBC as a counter example.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    4. Re:Oversaturation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sound like a Physiocrat shill.

  24. They already did it! by SAN1701 · · Score: 1

    And it was much better than the latest Star Wars.

  25. Harrison Ford is too old now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or else there's going to be a LOT of CGI and plastic surgery...

  26. Belief... by Grog6 · · Score: 1

    I'm just happy they never made sequels to The Matrix; I mean, how weird would that have been, right? :)

    --
    Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
    1. Re:Belief... by roc97007 · · Score: 0

      Yes. Yes, exactly.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  27. Agreed; Chewie was Male... by Grog6 · · Score: 1

    Nuff said. :)

    --
    Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
  28. Re:Gov-a-mint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    “If you have ever been robbed by a Gungan teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.”

  29. Please don't tell me... by Yaztromo · · Score: 1

    ...that Shia LeBeouf is going to play young Han Solo!

    1. Re:Please don't tell me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shia Lebeouf gets his ass kicked too many times to be a consideration. They need a man for the part, not a scrawny little bitch.

  30. made with... by greg.allen.uk · · Score: 1

    Full title: "The Han Solo Lego Movie"

  31. And the Death Star would be what, exactly? by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I sympathise with most Lucas complaints, but this is a pretty weird one. Are you suggesting that, because our particular planet has a lot of diversity (and do I need to point out that pretty much all of the other planets we've discovered are NOT diverse at all?) that all space operas should take place on a single planet? You don't think that might diminish the epicness a tad? You don't think that changing a planet-destroying weapon to, I don't know, a continent-destroying weapon would have been a tad lame?

    The SW universe being too big is not a problem. In fact, its sense of size is one of the biggest things it had going for it, and it is precisely Lucas's unhealthy devotion to self-referential character-recycling smallness that drags things down--the main characters are all laboriously and ridiculously connected/related/cloned so that they are present or connected to all critical characters and all critical plot points. Boba Fett was a neat little background character that developed a strong cult following, so Lucas... decides to make him *the* clone of the mysterious 'clone wars', which is ridiculous from pretty much every single angle except the angle that he gets to prominently include a fan favorite in the prequels.

    1. Re:And the Death Star would be what, exactly? by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      > Are you suggesting that, because our particular planet has a lot of diversity (and do I need to point out that pretty much all of the other planets we've discovered are NOT diverse at all?) that all space operas should take place on a single planet?

      Nope. I'm suggesting that the trope that you have to go to one human-habitable planet to find ice, and another to find forest, and another to find desert, and another to find lava, is a tired one and doesn't show a lot of imagination.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    2. Re:And the Death Star would be what, exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Epicness isn't a word, asshole. Shouldn't you be in school young man?

    3. Re:And the Death Star would be what, exactly? by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 1

      I have my degree. English is agglutinative. Get over it.

    4. Re:And the Death Star would be what, exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it isn't. English is inflected and fusional, not agglutinative.

      I'd ask for your money back on that degree.

    5. Re:And the Death Star would be what, exactly? by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 1

      Myths perpetrated by shameless Latinophiles. Let me guess: you're also one of those assholes who thinks split infinitives are incorrect?

    6. Re:And the Death Star would be what, exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why did you bother to go to University if you just reject out of hand the knowledge they try to impart?

    7. Re:And the Death Star would be what, exactly? by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 1

      Well not all of this was from university, but at some point I learned that English doesn't have a standardizing body--only handfuls of hypercorrective self-hating Latinophiles who occasionally pop up and try to deem perfectly logical and useful constructions 'incorrect'. I learned that English is closely related to a number of agglutinative languages, it's painfully obvious that quite a few of our words have been created via agglutination, I learned that the language spoken by Shakespeare was NOT "old English" but merely an earlier form of Modern English, and I also learned that Shakespeare invented a number of new words through agglutination that are still in widespread use today. By contrast, it is also quite obvious that Romantic languages have done a lot to resist new word formation via agglutination, which is one of the reasons (but not the only one) why you will so often see French or Spanish translations that have phrases 4-5 words long as the equivalent of 1-2 words in English.

      People who don't believe that need explained to them why split infinitives are a good thing are either thoroughly-indoctrinated authoritarians parroting someone else's silly ideas or they are irredeemable Latinophiles completely unwilling to accept a different verb paradigm. Split infinitives are perfectly natural, logical, have very long history of use and in some sentences are the only way to unambiguously tie an adverb down. I determined this on my own through experimentation long before hearing it confirmed by someone with a doctorate in English. But again, the doctorates do not really matter--they have no binding authority. We therefore have only the history of the language and rationality to guide us, neither of which support your obviously Latin-derived arguments.

    8. Re:And the Death Star would be what, exactly? by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 1

      Split infinitives are perfectly natural, logical, have very long history of use and in some sentences are the only way to unambiguously tie an adverb down.

      You wanna know the best part? I didn't even do that intentionally. Although to be fair, 'to tie unambigulously' wouldn't have been ambiguous. You may consult Google for some examples of situations where the non-split version is obviously and unfixably ambiguous.

    9. Re:And the Death Star would be what, exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I learned that English is closely related to a number of agglutinative languages

      No, it isn't-- no Indo-European languages are, Germanic or Romance. Latin isn't. Sanskrit isn't. Get over it.

      it's painfully obvious that quite a few of our words have been created via agglutination

      This tells me two things, 1) that you think having some amount of agglutination makes a language agglutinative, and 2) that you don't really know what an agglutinative language is.

    10. Re:And the Death Star would be what, exactly? by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 1

      If you want to argue Germanic languages aren't agglutinative you are of course free to do so... with a linguist, in some jargon-heavy journal somewhere. Have fun. I'm not particularly interested in trotting down that particular pedantic path regarding degree or type of word-gluing that is considered "agglutinative" or not. A quick check confirms that the word agglutinative (which of course originally simply meant "to glue", or something along those lines) does indeed has multiple definitions--it's the broader definition that I was referring to, and this was obviously made clear in the context of the criticism of the word "epicness".

      Trying to hijack the argument by using an alternate definition of the word that clearly wasn't intended (in light of my defense against your original half-baked criticism) is lame.

    11. Re:And the Death Star would be what, exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like I said, get the money back on the degree. And get evaluated for Dunning-Krueger.

    12. Re:And the Death Star would be what, exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's lame is your being flat-out wrong on a statement concerning linguistics, and trotting out your degree as if it lends some kind of authority to your contrarian opinion when it flies in the face of all established knowledge in the field.

      Lame, but simultaneously hilarious.

    13. Re:And the Death Star would be what, exactly? by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 1

      Again, you are arguing for a specific technical definition of a term while ignoring the obvious general definition I was using to make my point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... You admitted English was inflective and fusional, ergo it is also agglutinative (in the general sense of the term) to the extent that "epicness" is perfectly recognizable and valid. You want to argue with that, you might as well attack the word "assassination", a word invented by Shakespeare from the root word "assassin".

      For all the intellectual honesty you're showing, you might as well start an argument with a chef that eggplant is a good dessert food, and then when they try to argue babble on about how eggplant is a botanical fruit. It isn't relevant to the original discussion, and furthermore non-botanists (/non-linguists) do not give a shit.

    14. Re:And the Death Star would be what, exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To clarify, it's not about dismissing the fields of botany or linguistics. It is merely that, as any linguist knows, the existence of a specific, scientific jargonized definition of a word does not render the original, plainer English meaning invalid. I am using agglutinative in the original sense of the term. And 'epicness' remains as valid a word as 'assassination' regardless of how you choose to define agglutination.

    15. Re:And the Death Star would be what, exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Use 'agglutinative' any way you like, just stop pretending you're discussing linguistics in any serious way...

    16. Re:And the Death Star would be what, exactly? by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 1

      I think that a core concept of linguistics is that words can have more than one meaning and that people who try to insist otherwise are douchebags. Exhibit 1: Noam Chomsky.

      I'm using the original definition of the word, a definition that is still in common (if not the most common) use.

    17. Re:And the Death Star would be what, exactly? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      English is not an agglutinative language, it is a language, that many languages in many different families that can use agglutination in word creation. You're deliberately confusing two separate, though related concepts, to try not to look like a fucking idiot.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    18. Re:And the Death Star would be what, exactly? by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 1

      And you've spent like what, 5 comments in a row or something busy ignoring the original argument and focusing on playing semantic games instead because you know you are wrong. (Assuming you are the same person as the AC.)

    19. Re:And the Death Star would be what, exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just stop. You literally don't know what you're talking about.

      IF English were agglutinative, it wouldn't matter that "epicness" isn't in the dictionary, but it's not agglutinative, and "epicness" is your own nonstandard coinage. It sounds stupid, too.

    20. Re:And the Death Star would be what, exactly? by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 1

      The wikipedia article on agglutination had a sourced subsection of significant size (which I wasn't aware of when this started, nor would it make sense to argue otherwise because I had no reason to think you would embark on this newspeak semantic sideshow) which specifically, explicitly supports what I am talking about.

      Epicness is obviously not "my own" coinage. It's been around for a while now. Given how cumbersome and Romantically portentious alternative constructions like "epic nature" would be, and given how easily understandable the -ness suffix is, I would say that far outweighs your own crotchety "but I don't liiiike it!" complaint.

      You bring up dictionaries--again, English has no central authority. Dictionaries copy what people do, not the other way around. (This is of course why "muggle" is in the OED.) Given that there are countless examples of similar coinage (again: "assassination") you haven't explained what feature of English does or should prevent it. I assert that the only obstacles are self-important Latinophiles who prefer verbose constructions of atomic words, along with the centralized binding authorities that many Romantic languages seem to have.

      Finally, you never clarified your position on split infinitives. Your reply to that post implies you're against them, in which case I would ask why you would want English to deliberately sacrifice its precision and flexibility by forcing us to emulate Romantic infinitives.

  32. Sodomy laws prevent such a prequel! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Han Solo To Get His Own Star Wars Movie Prequel

    I thought it was Leia who was milking Han? That's OK. But now it turns out studio execs do the same, which is disgusting and against nature!

  33. Re:Too bad they already axed the extended universe by Smuffe · · Score: 1

    Couldn't agree more. I thought the Thrawn trilogy was very entertaining, tied into the cannon in an excellent way and would have been great as movies. Too bad that will (probably) never happend.

  34. Lucas ruined the character by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When Lucas re-did the movies and changed it so that Han did not flat-out kill Greedo, he broke the whole mystique of the character. He went from being a Lone Wolf out to save his skin at any cost, to a cardboard cut-out character.

  35. Yes! by Sez+Zero · · Score: 1

    A Kasdan penned Han Solo movie? Yes, please!

  36. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Except rather than make a whole movie about the younger backstory they just made it the beginning of the movie...

    Junior!

  37. Old fan by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

    From someone who saw what is now known as "A New Hope" in theaters 4 times in the 70's (not really a brag, that just means I was alive then. The lines were literally around the theaters every showing), this is a frigging great idea. I don't know why it took so long to come up with it, but I'm grateful it didn't happen until after Lucas.

    On a side note, whoever's idea it was to make the "department" on this post a quote from Kosh on Babylon-5, 50 points to your house. (Hufflepuff I'm guessing). And may the odds be forever in your favor. Always.

  38. But.. by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

    Will he still be the type to shoot first?

    --

    Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
  39. zed oh my gawd STOP THE STUPIDITY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fuck. star. warz.

  40. Who will play Han? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Awesome. Ben Affleck returns to the big screen. Or Nicolas Cage?

    1. Re:Who will play Han? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My money's on Seann William Scott.

    2. Re:Who will play Han? by sad_ · · Score: 1

      Well, Shia LaBeouf ofcourse!

      --
      On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
  41. Re:Too bad they already axed the extended universe by danbert8 · · Score: 1

    Soundrels would also make an excellent movie... Alas, Star Wars will never be in the public domain in our lifetimes in order to make the movies on our own.

    --
    Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
  42. Also: Epicness Google result by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 1

    Google result for epicness: "About 987,000 results"

    From its Wiktionary entry: "The quality or state of being epic."

    The split infinitive argument really has the potential to be much more fun, though, so I'd prefer you address that one. There's really no possible way to be against them without falling back on some very silly authoritarian and/or Romantic ideas.

    1. Re:Also: Epicness Google result by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't really give a shit what you want me to address. I don't really give a shit how you personally use English.

      All I'm addressing is your claim that English is agglutinative, which has a very specific meaning within linguistics, and your claim is false.

      Now you want to move the goalposts and claim that's not what you meant; all it really means is you made a foolish claim without understanding the subject.

    2. Re:Also: Epicness Google result by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 1

      Moving goalposts? You've again switched the argument away from "epicness" to semantics, in reply a post that specifically refuted your claim that the word was something I made up (refuted) and was not found in dictionaries (also refuted). You're now going back to the claim that agglutinative has only one definition, which I have already refuted.

      Your continued refusal to accept that a word might have another definition (which has also been used in the field of linguistics, specifically) is, of course, another fine and amusingly self-satirical example your own linguistic ignorance.

      Of course there are languages that employ on the fly grammatical agglutination and I never said that English was one of them, but it is certainly agglutinative insofar as we have some commonly understood prefixes and suffixes that are routinely used to coin new words, generally without comment except from the cranky, ultraconservative peanut gallery.

      Or, to put it another way: I have sources backing up everything I've said. You have nothing but your crotchety old man rants and your own highly mobile goal posts, which I've caught and demolished in spite of your disingenuous babble.

    3. Re:Also: Epicness Google result by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > You're now going back to the claim that agglutinative has only one definition, which I have already refuted.

      No, you haven't - you may as well redefine Pascal as an "object-oriented language," because variables and constants meet one broad definition of "object," and hey, it generates "object" code so it must be "object-oriented," right? Those stuffy computer scientists are just too blinkered to see it.

    4. Re:Also: Epicness Google result by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 1

      It is certainly possible to roll one's own OO in Pascal or a number of other languages, to one degree or another. Or for a somewhat better metaphor, it's possible to talk about VBA's extremely anemic OO without implying that it can be placed in the same category of C++'s OO. And then a Lisper like me will chime in and say that without CLOS-type generic functions and considering all of those artificial barriers around what you can do with primitives, C++ really isn't very object oriented, either. Honestly, seriously, that ghetto "design pattern" OO dogshit that C++/Java has foisted on countless innocent minds has way more in common with C structs than it does with the majesty that is CLOS.

      But that doesn't mean I get to wig out and demand that no one ever use the term 'object oriented' with C++ or VBA. In other words, OO is a non-atomic quality that can be possessed to greater or lesser degrees. While it is often valid and useful to talk in terms of discrete classifications of languages in terms of being OO or non-OO, it is also valid refer to the general principle when discussing specific cases--doing foo in language X is OO. Or, that language X is OO to the extent that people tend to do foo in it. VBA is nowhere near the ultra-OO side of the universe and English is nowhere near the ultra-agglutinative side of the universe, but neither case is a warrant for some kind of all-out war against simple, contextual descriptions.

      Or, again, you know, YOU COULD GO LOOK AT THE FUCKING LINKS SHOWING THAT OTHER PEOPLE, THAT OTHER *LINGUISTS* HAVE USED THE TERM IN THE SAME GENERALIZED WAY AS I HAVE. Christ almighty, it's like arguing with someone who thinks that the word "conservative" can't ever be used unless referring to someone in Britain's Conservative party.

    5. Re:Also: Epicness Google result by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is certainly possible to roll one's own OO in Pascal or a number of other languages, to one degree or another.

      Somehow I knew you would do that, redefining standard industry terms to fit whatever you think might be applicable.

      I notice none of your links describes English as an agglutinative language. For the last time, having some instances of agglutination in a language doesn't mean you can construct any old form you like as agglutinative languages allow you to do.

    6. Re:Also: Epicness Google result by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 1

      Especially in some older literature, agglutinative is sometimes used as a synonym for synthetic. In that case, it embraces what we call agglutinative and inflectional languages, and it is an antonym of analytic or isolating. Besides the clear etymological motivation (after all, inflectional endings are also "glued" to the stems), this more general usage is justified by the fact that the distinction between agglutinative and inflectional languages is not a sharp one, as we have already seen.

      Sources are given for the entire section, all print but I'd seen some stuff on Google as well. Sorry, I'm not going to spoon feed it to you. If you have an ounce of intellectual honesty you will spend 30 seconds and reply to it on your own.

      Somehow I knew you would do that, redefining standard industry terms to fit whatever you think might be applicable.

      You ignored the very next sentence, where I implicitly acknowledged that the Pascal example (as an analogy) was a flawed one and I gave you a much better one involving C++, Java, VBA and CLOS. Ignoring my Lisp fetish for the moment, do you agree or disagree that Visual Basic (non-.NET) is object oriented and if you agree, what is the minimum subset of features you define for OO? I would argue that despite a very superficial implementation of a few C++-ish paradigms that in practice VBA isn't as OO as C is with structs and typedefs. So, is VBA OO or isn't it? Is C++? Is C?

      Do you in fact care about the nuts and bolts at all or do you simply care about whether the marketing droids proclaim it to be an object oriented language on the cover of the latest "for dummies" book? Clarify this, and you clarify your own confusion over the agglutination bit.

  43. Actually, I think I'll just claim the win here by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 1
    Let's do this another way:

    For the last time, having some instances of agglutination in a language doesn't mean you can construct any old form you like as agglutinative languages allow you to do.

    Saying "English is agglutinative" is not the same thing as saying "English is first and foremost an agglutinative language" or "English is primarily categorized as agglutinative." It is roughly the equivalent of saying "English has [some] instances of agglutination." That was my intention at the time and it's clear that I was arguing for agglutination re: suffix attachment and not the exotic stuff, and so... by admitting that English contains valid instances of agglutination, you've completely agreed with me on every primary topic in this little tangent and pointedly ignored the rest (epicness being widely used and found in modern dictionaries, coinage of new words such as assassination, the split infinitives you refuse to discuss, etc.)

    So, I'm calling this a win. Get back to me with something interesting or intelligent if you want; otherwise, I do believe I'm done here.