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.