# Star Wars Scratch Lottery Tickets



## ShrinkyLink (Jun 8, 2005)

Just when I start to warm to Lucasfilm again, I see this. 

Thoughts?


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 8, 2005)

Its old news...and what's so bad about this? Its just marketing, and Star Wars has marketing power. Why NOT do it?


----------



## Aeson (Jun 8, 2005)

I think the burger king comercials are worse than that. Everytime I see them especially with the Jedi helping the kid with his ketchup I hid my face in my hands and regret being a Star Wars fan.


----------



## ShrinkyLink (Jun 8, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Its old news...and what's so bad about this? Its just marketing, and Star Wars has marketing power. Why NOT do it?




I just saw my first commercial for it last night, so I apologize for posting old news. 

As for not doing it, well, I had assumed Lucas would not condone gambling. I suppose Wookiee Absolut Vodka will be next? I just find it funny how a company that proclaims Star Wars is for kids is now telling them it's okay to blow two bucks on a potentially dangerous addictive pastime.


----------



## wingsandsword (Jun 10, 2005)

ShrinkyLink said:
			
		

> I just find it funny how a company that proclaims Star Wars is for kids is now telling them it's okay to blow two bucks on a potentially dangerous addictive pastime.



"Hey, wanna buy a lottery ticket?"

*waves hand* "You don't want to sell me a lottery ticket."

"I don't want to sell you a lottery ticket"

*waves hand* "You want to go back and rethink this promotion."

"I want to go back and rethink this promotion."

Now, about potentially dangerous pastimes in Star Wars.  Han Solo is a drug runner, plain and simple: Glitterstim spice is a hallucenogenic drug and Han made his fame smuggling it from Kessel past Imperial blockades.  Not to mention all the talk in the EU of him and Lando being gamblers, that's how the Falcon changed hands.  (Han was a pretty dangerous character, after all, he shot first at Greedo  ).  The Arconan race is succeptible to addiction to plain old table salt, and of course there were "Death Stick" dealers all over Coruscant.  Drugs, gambling and other bad things are a part of the Star Wars universe.

Now, do I think they should use them to sell lottery tickets, probably not, and while Lucasfilm is a lot more mindful of spin-offs and licensing now than they were in the late 70's (Splinter of the Minds Eye and the Holiday Special?), any operation the size of Lucas Licensing could make a mistake once in a while.


----------



## mojo1701 (Jun 10, 2005)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> Now, about potentially dangerous pastimes in Star Wars.  Han Solo is a drug runner, plain and simple: Glitterstim spice is a hallucenogenic drug and Han made his fame smuggling it from Kessel past Imperial blockades.  Not to mention all the talk in the EU of him and Lando being gamblers, that's how the Falcon changed hands.  (Han was a pretty dangerous character, after all, he shot first at Greedo  ).  The Arconan race is succeptible to addiction to plain old table salt, and of course there were "Death Stick" dealers all over Coruscant.  Drugs, gambling and other bad things are a part of the Star Wars universe.
> 
> Now, do I think they should use them to sell lottery tickets, probably not, and while Lucasfilm is a lot more mindful of spin-offs and licensing now than they were in the late 70's (Splinter of the Minds Eye and the Holiday Special?), any operation the size of Lucas Licensing could make a mistake once in a while.




Yeah, but they never called it drugs. And even if they did, most kids know about drugs, and what they are (if not the specific drugs). Besides, the characters never USE drugs.


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 10, 2005)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> Yeah, but they never called it drugs. And even if they did, most kids know about drugs, and what they are (if not the specific drugs). Besides, the characters never USE drugs.



So sell drugs ok? use drugs bad?  Where are we America???    

This is just another lottery scratching money making thing.  MOnopoly does it why not star was.  I wish we could go back 20 years and see all the exploits that happened back then.  Heck Big tabacco probably had darth vadar cigerettes.  

I actually like this game.  Theres a chance of losing with this one unlike the others.  At first I thought oh i bet both of them are the same but i was wrong.  In any case  let's just hope that this company doesnt do what the company that used to run the monopoly game did..

they had the game rigged so that their relatives would win.


----------



## Psychic Warrior (Jun 11, 2005)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> In any case  let's just hope that this company doesnt do what the company that used to run the monopoly game did..
> 
> they had the game rigged so that their relatives would win.




Well is was actually a small group of individuals within said company that 'rigged' the game.  And they were nailed in a fake monopoly game that McDs ran just to get them.

For those who feel Star Wars is over merchandised or (and I love this term) 'sold it's soul'  I invite you back to Christmas 1978 at the Warrior family home.  Nearly $500 (1978) bucks blown on every manner of Star Wars toy you could shake a Jawa at.  There were Star Wars sheets, glasses, figures, playsets (Death Star playset was my favourite), pencils, writing paper, shirts etc etc etc etc etc.  Merchadising, thy name is Star Wars.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Jun 11, 2005)

I wouldn't buying a ticket, just to add it to my collection of Star Wars merchandise that I have. I imagine it might be a valuable collectible in the future.


----------



## ShrinkyLink (Jun 11, 2005)

We can discuss for days whether Lucas over-merchandised the Star Wars franchise, both pro-and con. But at least with the pencils, bedsheets, or the Alan Dean Foster novel, you at least got _something_ for your money. Gambling rarely gives anything back. And yes, I'm aware that buying a scratch lottery ticket on a lark won't turn you into a destitute gambler--but I'm just uncomfortable with the idea of children seeing lottery tickets with Chewbacca on them, and then associating something they might cherish with a game of chance rigged to take their money.

I suppose I just see this differently than most. I've seen firsthand how insidious gambling can be, and I've seen lives destroyed by it. So that's where I'm coming from.

And I had the bedsheets, by the way. I adored them.


----------



## Villano (Jun 11, 2005)

ShrinkyLink said:
			
		

> I just find it funny how a company that proclaims Star Wars is for kids is now telling them it's okay to blow two bucks on a potentially dangerous addictive pastime.




During a review for RotS, someone pointed out the hypocrisy of Lucas making the film PG-13 and warning parents that they shouldn't take little kids, while simultaneously marketing it to kids with toys, Burger King Kid's Meals, etc.

Lucas wants to have it both ways.  It's for kids when he wants to sell something to kids, and for adults when he wants to sell something to them.  

I do agree that Lucas is a hypocrite in this instance.  You don't tell kids that they shouldn't go to a movie and then market it directly to them.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 11, 2005)

Jurrasic Park had toys...

So have many other PG-13 movies. *I* think people just look for a reason to go after Lucas.


----------



## Villano (Jun 11, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Jurrasic Park had toys...
> 
> So have many other PG-13 movies. *I* think people just look for a reason to go after Lucas.




Wild, Wild West, another PG-13 film, had a Burger King Kids Meal, too.  

Anyway, just because other people have done it, doesn't make it right.  Especially, when you make a big deal about how "dark" your film is.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 12, 2005)

ShrinkyLink said:
			
		

> As for not doing it, well, I had assumed Lucas would not condone gambling.




Didn't Han Solo win the Millennium Falcon by gambling?


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 12, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> *I* think people just look for a reason to go after Lucas.




I think so too...  Sad too.

As for Star Wars and toys.  That's big market business and something that Lucas has always done...  Not everyone buying those toys is a kid nor do I think they are aimed strictly at kids.


----------



## wingsandsword (Jun 12, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> Didn't Han Solo win the Millennium Falcon by gambling?



That and the entire Pod Race scene of Episode I was about Qui-Gon gambling everything on the race, and his little moral advice about it to Watto when he bet against Anakin and was wiped out: "Whenever you gamble, my friend, eventually you’ll lose" or Watto's advice to Anakin "Better stop your friends betting, or I'll end up owning him, too."

The EU has been replete with gamblers: Lando a professional gambler in addition to entrepeneur, Han was a card shark at sabacc (a card game similar to poker and blackjack with lots of references in the EU, including full rules), in the EU the Herglics have a racial gambling addiction.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 12, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> Not everyone buying those toys is a kid nor do I think they are aimed strictly at kids.




Exactly.

What kid wants to buy the action figures of senators that just stand there and don't even have a weapon?


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 12, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> What kid wants to buy the action figures of senators that just stand there and don't even have a weapon?




Exactly! 

Especially the girly ones cause girls have cooties!


----------



## Wereserpent (Jun 12, 2005)

Aeson said:
			
		

> I think the burger king comercials are worse than that. Everytime I see them especially with the Jedi helping the kid with his ketchup I hid my face in my hands and regret being a Star Wars fan.




I liked that commercial!


----------



## Villano (Jun 12, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> I think so too...  Sad too.
> 
> As for Star Wars and toys.  That's big market business and something that Lucas has always done...  Not everyone buying those toys is a kid nor do I think they are aimed strictly at kids.




*sigh* We're not doing the "Lucas Haters" thing again, are we?  I swear, Star Wars fanboys are worse than Star Trek fanboys.   

Look, when Lucas does interviews stressing how dark his film is and warns that it may not be suitable for kids, entertainment reporters and critics are going to notice little things like Burger King KIDS Meals and children's clothes and Legos and other toys aimed for the very young and call him on the hypocricy of it.

True, Lucas has always done toys, but he never before warned parents not to take little kids to his movie.  

It may shock some people to know, but reporters and critics don't walk around conspiring to "get" George Lucas.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 12, 2005)

Villano said:
			
		

> It may shock some people to know, but reporters and critics don't walk around conspiring to "get" George Lucas.




Its not reporters and critics. Its 'fans' that are the ones who go after him the most. Critics and reporters, these days at least, are usually very positive about Lucas.

As for the Burger King situation...well, Burger King deserves just as much as the blame. Though it should be noted that all the toys and such are not specific to RotS. They are from all of the movies, and even though there are production images and such here and there, the tyos themselves are definitely emphasizing the entire saga and not just RotS.


----------



## Villano (Jun 12, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> As for the Burger King situation...well, Burger King deserves just as much as the blame. Though it should be noted that all the toys and such are not specific to RotS. They are from all of the movies, and even though there are production images and such here and there, the tyos themselves are definitely emphasizing the entire saga and not just RotS.




I do think he crossed the line when they advertised the Anakin toy as having "realistic youngling killing action".


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 12, 2005)

You know what's sad...?



			
				Villano said:
			
		

> True, Lucas has always done toys, but he never before warned parents not to take little kids to his movie.




That this cost him money, and in this day of the bottom line meaning everything its nice to see someone being honest and up front and its said to see people take shots at him for it.  

So was he not suppose to make toys cause his movie was PG13?


----------



## Villano (Jun 12, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> You know what's sad...?
> 
> That this cost him money, and in this day of the bottom line meaning everything its nice to see someone being honest and up front and its said to see people take shots at him for it.
> 
> So was he not suppose to make toys cause his movie was PG13?




I don't understand arguments like this.  They somehow assume that criticism of something Lucas does is some kind of personal attack.  You can legitimately criticism someone and not "take shots" at them.  It ultimately comes down to the "haters" argument again, because no criticism of Lucas can be made without the critic being labeled as someone who's attacking him.  

It involves a bit of circular reasoning, too.  People who criticize him, hate him.  How do we know they hate him?  They criticize him, of course!  Only people who hate him would do that.  

In this case, some people take issue that he's telling parents not to take young children to see the film, while marketing certain things to those very kids, who will then want to see the movie.  That seems like a legitimate criticism to me (especially if they are parents of young kids who bought the toys and now want to go see the film.  Now those parents have to act as the "bad guys" and tell them, "no").  

The toy question is a loaded question.  They aren't saying he shouldn't make any toys at all, just certain ones.  No one is complaining about action figures, but stuff like Playskool, which is aimed for those very young kids he thinks shouldn't see his film.  

Lucas can market his film any way he wants, but he shouldn't be above criticism.  It's not like the world will end if he doesn't market his film to 4 year olds.  And we aren't talking about artistic rights or freedom of speech here.  It's marketing.  It's about making money.  He doesn't want the kids to see the film, but he'll take their money.  Again, that's a legitimate criticism.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 12, 2005)

Villano, forget it then.   You’re not going to change my opinion and I'm not going to change yours.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 12, 2005)

Villano said:
			
		

> Now those parents have to act as the "bad guys" and tell them, "no"




Explain to me why its a bad thing to tell a chlid no, and I might agree with you.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 12, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Explain to me why its a bad thing to tell a chlid no, and I might agree with you.



Cause kids aren’t capable of understanding the concept of "no" nor are they ready to find out that life isn’t fair?


----------



## Villano (Jun 12, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Explain to me why its a bad thing to tell a chlid no, and I might agree with you.




Um, it isn't. :\ 

You seemed to have missed my, and the critics, point.  Lucas says they shouldn't see the film, then targets them.  I'm sorry if you can't understand why some people think it hypocritical of him.

An analogy would be to Sammy Davis, Jr performing in segregated night clubs.  They wanted him to perform and earn money from him, but they wouldn't let him eat there.  It's not a great comparison, but hopefully you can see what I mean.  Lucas doesn't want them to see it, but he'll take their money.

Like I said, the world won't end if he doesn't put out a Playskool toy.  It just means more money for him.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 12, 2005)

Villano said:
			
		

> You seemed to have missed my, and the critics, point.




And you have missed ours...   



			
				Villano said:
			
		

> Lucas doesn't want them to see it, but he'll take their money.




I thought you needed to be 16 to have a job in most of the states... You mean their parents money. 



			
				Villano said:
			
		

> Like I said, the world won't end if he doesn't put out a Playskool toy.  It just means more money for him.




Yes and no, I do see your point but I think Lucas is in a no win situation here.  If he supports the line he's got people like you mad at him and if he abounds the line then he has little kids crying and other patents mad at him for not giving their children play things. 

This is business as normal, its not him doing some sort of vile act, and as others have said PG13 movies, and even R rated movies have gotten toy lines...


----------



## ssampier (Jun 12, 2005)

*Merchandising*

Space Balls the T-Shirt, Space Balls the breakfast cereal... Space Balls the Flame Thrower, the kids love it


----------



## Villano (Jun 12, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> if he abounds the line then he has little kids crying and other patents mad at him for not giving their children play things.




To which I say...  



			
				Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Explain to me why its a bad thing to tell a chlid no, and I might agree with you.






> This is business as normal, its not him doing some sort of vile act, and as others have said PG13 movies, and even R rated movies have gotten toy lines...




I can't recall that many PG-13 or R movies that had toys aimed at the pre-school set.  Maybe Jurassic Park?  That's the only one I can think of. 

It's not vile, just a bit hypocritical.



			
				ssampier said:
			
		

> Space Balls the T-Shirt, Space Balls the breakfast cereal... Space Balls the Flame Thrower, the kids love it




There's an online store that sells all manner of things from Japan.  Apparently, one of their most popular items is a Hello Kitty vibra...,er, "back massager".  Space Balls never had one of those.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 12, 2005)

Villano said:
			
		

> Apparently, one of their most popular items is a Hello Kitty vibra...,er, "back massager".  Space Balls never had one of those.




It's in the unedited directors cut...  The women love it.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 12, 2005)

Villano said:
			
		

> I can't recall that many PG-13 or R movies that had toys aimed at the pre-school set.  Maybe Jurassic Park?  That's the only one I can think of.




Well there is Batman Begins, which is coming out at the same time as RotS but not picking up the negative that Lucas is getting.  At least as far as I can tell...


----------



## ShrinkyLink (Jun 13, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> So have many other PG-13 movies. *I* think people just look for a reason to go after Lucas.




Some do. I don't. 

I don't think Han being a gambler excuses SW lottery tickets. The gambling in SW and EU is pure fantasy gambling: if someone wins, they win big--like Han winning the Falcon, or Lando winning the deed to Cloud City. If they lose, it usually leads into some adventure or other. Never do we see Han having to hock the Falcon to pay his debts, or blow his smuggling fee scratching tickets outside some Mos Eisley variety store.

I am in awe of Lucas on many points: his dedication to digital film, for example, and his insistence that theatres show films as they are meant to be seen, has done more to preserve the pure art and joy of cinema than most people realize. He could have sold the SW concept and made a decent buck back after *A New Hope*, but he cared enough to keep it. These things I admire. I just see these lottery tickets as a mistake. That's all.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, good sir.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 13, 2005)

ShrinkyLink said:
			
		

> I don't think Han being a gambler excuses SW lottery tickets. The gambling in SW and EU is pure fantasy gambling:




So your really think kids know the difference between real gambling, which is wrong in your words, and fantasy gambling, which is okay cause it advances the story?  

I think you give kids to much credit in this regard.


----------



## wingsandsword (Jun 13, 2005)

ShrinkyLink said:
			
		

> The gambling in SW and EU is pure fantasy gambling: if someone wins, they win big--like Han winning the Falcon, or Lando winning the deed to Cloud City. If they lose, it usually leads into some adventure or other. Never do we see Han having to hock the Falcon to pay his debts, or blow his smuggling fee scratching tickets outside some Mos Eisley variety store.



Watto lost everything when he gambled on the podrace, Qui-Gon even made the point of saying that gambling isn't always a bright idea.  Not only was it said in dialogue, when Anakin returns to Watto 10 years later, he's broke and washed up because of the big losses he had that day at the track.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 13, 2005)

wingsandsword, wow, I thought I liked the prequels but I've missed both of your points till you pointed them out to me...

I don't know if I should go, "Good point!" or turn in my membership card...  


I think I'll go "Good point!" and rewatch the movies again.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 13, 2005)

Villano said:
			
		

> I can't recall that many PG-13 or R movies that had toys aimed at the pre-school set.  Maybe Jurassic Park?  That's the only one I can think of.




What RotS toys are aimed at pre-school ages? 

The only ones that I can think of right now are the Galactic Heroes two sets of little characters. Batman definitely has had things aimed at kids of that age, as have Spiderman and both of those have been PG-13(or R, in the case of a couple of the Batman movies), but they get nothing.

And as for the actual gambling. Um...how many kids will ever actually SEE those things, anyway?


----------



## Villano (Jun 13, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> What RotS toys are aimed at pre-school ages?
> 
> The only ones that I can think of right now are the Galactic Heroes two sets of little characters. Batman definitely has had things aimed at kids of that age, as have Spiderman and both of those have been PG-13(or R, in the case of a couple of the Batman movies), but they get nothing.




Well, both Spider-Man and Batman are a different case since they existed before the movies and aren't necessarily dependent on them.  For example, I saw a Playskool(?) Spider-Man set that featured the Lizard.  Aside from a cameo by Dr. Conners, he wasn't in Spider-Man 2.

And what Batman movie was rated R? I didn't think they're were any. 

Besides, I don't recall Spider-Man or Batman have the same number of child deaths or dismemberments as RotS.   

I mentioned Wild, Wild West earlier.  That was another PG-13 movie that had a Kids Meal tie-in.  I would consider that out of place, too, since that movie was loaded with sexual and racial humor and had some nudity.  It definitely wasn't intended for kids at all, but it was marketed that way.

As for preschool RotS toys, I've heard of something from Playskool called Jedi Force Collection, but I don't know if that's part of that Galactic Heroes set you spoke of.

And, off the top of my head, I can think of Legos, RotS sticker books, Darth Vader voice changer, cartoony looking toy vehicles, the wind-up Burger King toys, Mr Potato Head, and children's clothes.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 13, 2005)

Villano said:
			
		

> Well, both Spider-Man and Batman are a different case since they existed before the movies and aren't necessarily dependent on them.




Neither is Star Wars, it has comics, novels, games, and just about anything you could give Spider-man and Batman.  It also had 5 movies that where PG before one PG13 Movies.



			
				Villano said:
			
		

> For example, I saw a Playskool(?) Spider-Man set that featured the Lizard.  Aside from a cameo by Dr. Conners, he wasn't in Spider-Man 2.




Did Spiderman have a figure?  Did Doc Ock have a figure?



			
				Villano said:
			
		

> And what Batman movie was rated R? I didn't think they're were any.




None to my knowledge, the current movie is rated PG13 and I believe that is a high as they have gone, in ratings not in what the director was sniffing at the time he made the film.

As for an R rated movie with a toy line.  Well Sin City got a toy line. 



			
				Villano said:
			
		

> And, off the top of my head, I can think of Legos, RotS sticker books, Darth Vader voice changer, cartoony looking toy vehicles, the wind-up Burger King toys, Mr Potato Head, and children's clothes.




Minus Mr. Vader Head and a Burger King toys Batman has all of them covered.


----------



## wingsandsword (Jun 13, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> As for an R rated movie with a toy line.  Well Sin City got a toy line.




Terminator 2 had a big toy line, and it was rated R.  Aliens also had a toy line (a smaller one though) and it was rated R.


----------



## mojo1701 (Jun 13, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> Neither is Star Wars, it has comics, novels, games, and just about anything you could give Spider-man and Batman.  It also had 5 movies that where PG before one PG13 Movies.
> 
> *snip*
> 
> None to my knowledge, the current movie is rated PG13 and I believe that is a high as they have gone, in ratings not in what the director was sniffing at the time he made the film.




Not here in Canada. It's only rated PG. I love this country.


----------



## Villano (Jun 13, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> Neither is Star Wars, it has comics, novels, games, and just about anything you could give Spider-man and Batman.  It also had 5 movies that where PG before one PG13 Movies.




The difference is that, for Star Wars, the things you mentioned grew from the movies.  For Spider-Man and Batman, the movies grew from the comics.  So, for those two, if you see some merchandise, it isn't necessarily linked to any one movie in particular.




			
				wingsandsword said:
			
		

> Terminator 2 had a big toy line, and it was rated R.  Aliens also had a toy line (a smaller one though) and it was rated R.




The Star Wars controversy isn't just about toys, but marketing to pre-schoolers.  Like I said, no one is arguing about action figures, but Playskool products and things like that.


----------



## fett527 (Jun 13, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> Minus Mr. Vader Head ...




You mean _DARTH TATER _ don't you?







While this came out this year it has no direct tie to RotS.


----------



## fett527 (Jun 13, 2005)

Too much. 

Due in September- Spudtrooper!


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 13, 2005)

Villano said:
			
		

> The difference is that, for Star Wars, the things you mentioned grew from the movies.




Not if we are talking children....  No 5 year old is going to know that Spider-Man started from the comics and Star Wars started in movie format if they are given the chance to see everything both have to offer.    



			
				Villano said:
			
		

> For Spider-Man and Batman, the movies grew from the comics.  So, for those two, if you see some merchandise, it isn't necessarily linked to any one movie in particular.




Everthing I've seen says Star Wars and not RotS on it when it comes to Playskool...   



			
				Villano said:
			
		

> The Star Wars controversy isn't just about toys, but marketing to pre-schoolers.  Like I said, no one is arguing about action figures, but Playskool products and things like that.




Everthing I've seen says Star Wars and not RotS on it when it comes to Playskool...


----------



## DungeonmasterCal (Jun 13, 2005)

I'm all for it.  I'm a red, white and blue capitalist pig and I love it.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 13, 2005)

Villano said:
			
		

> The Star Wars controversy isn't just about toys, but marketing to pre-schoolers.  Like I said, no one is arguing about action figures, but Playskool products and things like that.




Even though your retreating from this position Fantastic Four got a PG13 rating and it has a toy line.


----------



## Villano (Jun 13, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> Even though your retreating from this position Fantastic Four got a PG13 rating and it has a toy line.




Like I said, I was always talking about toys for the very young, and also that I feel that superheroes are kind of different than movies.  Those were my positions all along.   

And don't forget that not all movies that share a rating are exactly the same.  FF and The Ring are both rated PG-13.  You can probably take your 6 yr old to see FF and not worry, but if you plan on taking your kid to see The Ring, you should prepare for many nights of your child sleeping in your bed.  

Someone once said, "One 5-year-old's fantasy adventure is another 5-year-old's nightmare machine."

Same thing is true for R Rated films.  Crimson Tide isn't the same film as a horror movie filled with graphic sex and gore, even though they both are R rated.  

Now, if FF features a dozen dead toddlers and many limbs hacked off, then I'd agree that it could be viewed the same way a RotS.   

Speaking of severed limbs, does anyone else here think that Lucas has some kind of hand dismemberment fetish?  Look at this:

Star Wars - Walrus guy in bar loses an arm.
ESB - Luke
RotJ - Vader

TPM - Droids (throughout the prequels)
AotC - Anakin
RotS - 



Spoiler



Dooku's hands (both of them), Mace, Anakin (chopped to hell), Grieveous (at least two hands), and Grieveous' ship was call the Invisible Hand.



I guess he was saving it all up for RotS.  Damn, it seems like everytime someone fires up a lightsaber, someone loses a hand (or their head in RotS).  I'm surprised that half the jedi don't have mechanical hands by the time they finish their training.  They're worse than Red Ryder B-B Guns.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 13, 2005)

Villano said:
			
		

> Now, if FF features a dozen dead toddlers and many limbs hacked off, then I'd agree that it could be viewed the same way a RotS.




I'm sorry but IMHO you seem to have different standards…  Star Wars and everything else.


----------



## Villano (Jun 14, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> I'm sorry but IMHO you seem to have different standards…  Star Wars and everything else.




No, just between films that have a dozen dead toddlers and dismemberment and those that don't.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 14, 2005)

Villano said:
			
		

> No, just between films that have a dozen dead toddlers and dismemberment and those that don't.




So Star Wars has always been been wrong for children....  Interesting.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 29, 2005)

Oh just because its been one of those days, very slow, and I've been meaning to post this for awhile...  Another PG13 movie aimed at young kids. 

Enjoy:

http://www.funtocollect.com/piratebook.html

Now, I'm sure Disney will get off light cause there not hated like Lucas is but I do remember seeing lots of stuff aimed at the kids for this one...


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Jun 29, 2005)

Villano said:
			
		

> Speaking of severed limbs, does anyone else here think that Lucas has some kind of hand dismemberment fetish?  Look at this:
> 
> Star Wars - Walrus guy in bar loses an arm.
> ESB - Luke
> ...




Actually, this just makes sense for lightsaber combat.  It's one of the few vaguely realistic things about Star Wars - slicing off limbs is the most logical fighting style for a light saber-type weapon, or, for that matter, the more likely monofilament-type weapon.


----------



## Villano (Jun 29, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> Oh just because its been one of those days, very slow, and I've been meaning to post this for awhile...  Another PG13 movie aimed at young kids.
> 
> Enjoy:
> 
> ...




A "junior" novelization.  So, is it aimed at 13 year olds or 4 year olds?  It doesn't actually say.  There are Buffy junior novels, but I don't think those are written for preschoolers (preschoolers were the point of this, remember?).

And there are people who don't hate Disney?  Wow, did they all die?  

And if Disney did market it to preschoolers, that would be wrong, too.  I already mentioned Wild, Wild West as a movie which shouldn't be marketed to kids and was.  I don't see how it's singling out Lucas when I mentioned another film that did the same thing (although, admitedly, not to the same extent as Lucas...Lucas is in a different league when it comes to marketing).  

Oh well, there's no real point in continuing this for me since it's gone off into the "haters defense."  There can be no criticism since it all stems from hatred of Lucas.  Geez, I don't like Uwe Boll's movies, but I don't hate him.  :\


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 29, 2005)

Villano said:
			
		

> Oh well, there's no real point in continuing this for me since it's gone off into the "haters defense."  There can be no criticism since it all stems from hatred of Lucas.  Geez, I don't like Uwe Boll's movies, but I don't hate him.  :\




If you say so but I do see you bashing Lucas in a number of threads without mercy, plus I've seen you let other companies off the hook all the time in this thread...  How can a preschooler know that Batman was created in the 30's and Spiderman in the 60's and be based upon a comic book when during their life span of 4-6 years Star Wars, Batman, Spider-Man all have had the same merchandizing?

Simple fact is they can’t... and in my opinion I see a double standard.

As for the PotC...  It is an older movie now and find links on the Internet for merchandise is very limited...  It’s more of what I've seen in the Disney stores.  I imagine the new movie will carry a PG13 rating and we will see the tie ends that we saw with Star Wars.


----------



## Hijinks (Jun 29, 2005)

> I've seen firsthand how insidious gambling can be, and I've seen lives destroyed by it. So that's where I'm coming from.




I just don't see scratch-off tickets as that big of a deal.  I think that gambling, along with any other activity that, if abused, could cause a lot of trouble for a person (such as smoking, drinking, etc), is something that parents should be discussing with their children.  My parents never told me about gambling, but I've never felt that need to go blow all of my money on a big tip, or spend all night at the blackjack table, or what have you.  I know some people are more addictive personalities than I am - I'm not addicted to anything, other than online gaming, really - but to be honest, I've never understood why some people will lose everything they've ever had to gamble.  Bottom line is, if parents make sure their children know the dangers of gambling, then I have no problem whatsoever with scratch off tickets with Star Wars on them.

Besides, there *are* grown-up Star Wars fans, and who's to say the tickets are aimed at children, anyway?  Not everything with a Star Wars logo is intended for just kids.



> Never do we see Han having to hock the Falcon to pay his debts




Technically, no.  But he does get frozen in carbonite for not paying Jabba back.  It's made quite clear in the films that he owes Jabba money, regardless of what he owes it for (I don't know personally if it was for gambling or if it was for some smuggling he did for Jabba, or whatever - I don't need a lesson in the history between the two characters, please )  A child isn't going to pay any attention to why Jabba had Han frozen, but a child will recognize the fact that Han owes Jabba money, and gets in trouble because of it.  Ergo, it's bad to owe money


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 29, 2005)

Hijinks said:
			
		

> Besides, there *are* grown-up Star Wars fans, and who's to say the tickets are aimed at children, anyway?  Not everything with a Star Wars logo is intended for just kids.




That's just what I tell my niece when she tries to play with my Padmé blow up doll...   


I'm kidding, I'm kidding, I'm kidding...


----------



## Villano (Jun 29, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> If you say so but I do see you bashing Lucas in a number of threads without mercy,




Most people have "opinions".  Haters "bash without mercy."  Sorry if I thought the dialogue sucked in the prequels or that the 2 Anakins were bad actors.  I guess I'll just have to live with being a hater (as will most of the members of this website, filmgoers, and critics, apparently).   

And I guess you haven't noticed that you mention that people "hate" Lucas in many of those same threads.  I don't see you defending Uwe Boll the same way.  I'm sure he has fans who think that people unfairly "bash" him. 




> plus I've seen you let other companies off the hook all the time in this thread...




And I've mentioned specifically why (i.e., not all movies that carry the same rating share the same content.  Crimson Tide isn't Friday the 13th even though both are "R"s).  The fact that I said that some movies aren't like RotS, doesn't make it into a double standard when I mention others *that are* . 

Hell, I even said that it would be wrong for Disney to do that (if they have).  What more do you want?  

The only one here who seems to be ignoring companies (the ones I've included with Lucas) is you.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 29, 2005)

Villano said:
			
		

> I guess I'll just have to live with being a hater (as will most of the members of this website, filmgoers, and critics, apparently).




I think your "hate" has allowed you to misjudge the reaction of people at this website and others.  (Plus I fail to see the point of what "bad dialog" has upon preschoolers...)



			
				Villano said:
			
		

> And I guess you haven't noticed that you mention that people "hate" Lucas in many of those same threads.




Yes, defending Lucas from all of those people who've had their childhood raped is a full time job anymore...  



			
				Villano said:
			
		

> I don't see you defending Uwe Boll the same way.  I'm sure he has fans who think that people unfairly "bash" him.




I honesty do not even know who he is other than he seems to pick up alot of Video Games to turn into movies.  (none of which I've seen.  At least as far as I know.)



			
				Villano said:
			
		

> And I've mentioned specifically why (i.e., not all movies that carry the same rating share the same content.  Crimson Tide isn't Friday the 13th even though both are "R"s).  The fact that I said that some movies aren't like RotS, doesn't make it into a double standard when I mention others *that are*.




I agree with Crimson Tide and Friday the 13th being different but I'm not sure what your point is here... 



			
				Villano said:
			
		

> Hell, I even said that it would be wrong for Disney to do that (if they have).  What more do you want?




Nothing. 



			
				Villano said:
			
		

> The only one here who seems to be ignoring companies (the ones I've included with Lucas) is you.




I'm not sure I follow.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Jun 29, 2005)

Villano said:
			
		

> Oh well, there's no real point in continuing this for me since it's gone off into the "haters defense."  There can be no criticism since it all stems from hatred of Lucas.  Geez, I don't like Uwe Boll's movies, but I don't hate him.  :\




I have to say, Uwe Boll is about the only filmmaker who I do come close to hating for what he does with his movies.

He has ruined and continues to ruin what could otherwise be wonderful film franchises; worse, his terrible films (and other bombs, to be sure) denigrate the quality of electronic game storytelling, much of which, in the games themselves, is far better than either Boll's _or_ Lucas's.

As far as Star Wars gambling goes... did not Lando _explicitly_ lose the Falcon to Han while gambling?!  That seems like a pretty strong cautionary tale right there.


----------



## Steve Jung (Jun 30, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> As for the PotC...



I'm losing it. When I saw this, I thought of_ Passion of the Christ_ first. Even though I never saw that movie.


----------



## ShrinkyLink (Jul 2, 2005)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> As far as Star Wars gambling goes... did not Lando _explicitly_ lose the Falcon to Han while gambling?!  That seems like a pretty strong cautionary tale right there.




You're right. It is. And I've been schooled about Qui-Gon's words on gambling as well since starting this thread. Gambling is both bad and dangerous in the SW universe.

And I am not a Lucas hater. But if I see a Star Wars massage parlour, then I may have to become one, on principle. 

A hater, that is. Just to clear away any possible confusion.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 2, 2005)

ShrinkyLink said:
			
		

> But if I see a Star Wars massage parlour, then I may have to become one, on principle.




...would there be Twi'leks?


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jul 2, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> ...would there be Twi'leks?



I would imagine they would have more costumers that way then to say if they have Hutts working there.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 2, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> I would imagine they would have more costumers that way then to say if they have Hutts working there.



 So that's a 'yes' to Twi'leks?

No Lucas hating, then.


----------



## ShrinkyLink (Jul 2, 2005)

I just imagine the attendants wearing Leia's white robes and hairbuns. If you wanted to pay more, you could get the slave girl outfit.

And I'm thinking waaaaay too much about this....


----------



## ssampier (Jul 2, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> It's in the unedited directors cut...  The women love it.






I see your *swartz* is as _big_ as mine.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jul 2, 2005)

ssampier said:
			
		

> I see your *swartz* is as _big_ as mine.






It took 29 days, or so, but finaly the joke pays off!   Thanks ssampier!


----------

