That's what flashed through my mind when I saw this top image in an online ad, anyway. One of these pictures is from a "Star Wars" movie (I forget which one, but it was Episode I, II, or III, I can tell you that). The other is from "Resurrecting the Champ," starring Samuel L. Jackson and Josh Hartnett. Can you tell which one is which?
(Hint: One of the movies does not, as far as I know, feature the Grand Master of the Jedi Order.)
Answer: In the top image, Jackson plays an older Yoda. In the bottom picture, Yoda is played by a different actor.
Or, as pacheco suggests, perhaps the upper picture is from an "Alien vs. Predator"-type sequel, combining the "Star Wars" and "Lord of the Rings" franchises.
"Frodo's Back! And He's Old and Mean and Hanging Onto the Ring!"
For a moment I thought the top image had him holding a ring. I thought Lord of the Rings and Star Wars were finally merging!
That would be "Ringo Star Wars"?
My God, the newest Star Wars movies were bad. I feel ashamed calling them that. Turd Wars is more appropriate.
That image is from Episode I. You can tell by the non-digital Yoda.
I'll go kill myself now.
Contrarian alert:
The three Star Wars prequels were not that bad; unfairly maligned is more like it.
Nav...
make it fast.
A Mace Windu-centric Star Wars sequel would theoretically rock. I mean, Windu could have survived that fall. He's Samuel L. Jackson.
Just make sure George Lucas has as little involvement as possible and give scripting /directing/producing jobs to some crazy fans. Oh, and it HAS to be R rated with plenty of obscene four letter words.
That top image doesn't look very Mace Windu at all. I think Samuel L. Jackson looks distinctly homeless, and possible hooked on crack. And he's in the Matrix; with walls of vertically-scrolling text behind him.
Ted... You're being more then just contrarian. You're defending the indefensible.
Heck, someone's gotta do it. I guess I approach movies differently than most. I don't analyze a movie by going down and checkin off points -pluses and minuses- for dialogue, writing, performance, structure, etc. These kind of formula-based criticisms don't hold up; in fact, they are exercised for no other reason than for a critic to provide reason and "evidence" for why s/he liked a movie or didn't. Recounting a film's structural strengths and weaknesses (however they're defined) does not constitute criticism. Lucas' Star Wars prequels are ripe for bashing by critics and moviegoers who think there is a point to all that. For me, criticism and the experience of watching a movie is different. Sure, I was bothered by the blatant artifice of the films, but I was more exhilirated by individual moments; moments that aren't relished by people too busy scoffing at the film's weaknesses from their privelaged spectatorial position. Each of the three films have wonderful, even subtle moments throughout.
Old Mace Windu: "I'm tired of these mutha f*cking stormtroopers on this mutha f*cking starship!"