logo Sign In

Oh yeah!!! Lucas...clueless as ever. — Page 2

Author
Time
Post link
I'm a saga fan. Many of you aren't so I won't bother debating the (imho) relative merits of the PT. What I will say is that Speilberg and Ford are collaborators in this film. Lucas crafted the basic story, sure, but his role is exec producer. Koepp wrote the screenplay (and considering the dreck that was the first Spidey film, that's not an upgrade in my opinion), Speilberg is the director and Ford is more than just the leading man. There are plenty of chefs brewing this stew.

And I think some of you have some really screwy ideas about CGI. It's a tool to achieve a certain illusion, same as any other from the filmmaking trade. If it's a choice between something looking exactly the way the director wants via CGI or else a hackjob, bastardized shadow of how he originally envisioned, I'll take CGI everytime.

Esp since all effects (rubber masks, miniatures, CGI, whatever) all look fake to me anyway so why split hairs over which looks faker?
My preference is simple. I want remastered versions of precisely what we saw and heard for each Star Wars film on opening day.
Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link
thecolorsblend2 said:


And I think some of you have some really screwy ideas about CGI. It's a tool to achieve a certain illusion, same as any other from the filmmaking trade. If it's a choice between something looking exactly the way the director wants via CGI or else a hackjob, bastardized shadow of how he originally envisioned, I'll take CGI everytime.


I think really the issue is not with CGI but with what CGI has come to represent, I think it's summed up rather nicely by this quote. "your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should." by which I mean CG is just so easy now that people don't think twice before using it.

In 1977 George wanted to have storm troopers riding big lizards but it would have been difficult and expensive to do and since it wasn't very important they were relegated to the background, in 2005 George want Obi-wan riding a big lizard and it's easy to do and he can afford it so he does it, but is it any more important to the story?

I think the problem is that until recently it was rarely possible for the 'Directors original vision' to make it to the screen because there were always budget issues or time issues or quality issues that mean things had to be change and that forced people to think about what they were doing and often they thought of something better or got rid of something that was not working.

look at 'Raiders' the guy pulls out a sword and Indy shoots him, that was not part of the 'original vision' it was done because Ford couldn't film the sword fight that day, these days it could have been done with CG but even if that was completely photo-realistic and undetectable as CG the film may have been worse because it stuck to the 'original vision'

another example is 'Empire' the Wampa subplot didn't work for technical reasons so they cut it, but now they could easily go back and do it with CG and restore the 'original vision' but would that make the film better?

In reality the original trilogy do not represent the 'original vision' whereas the prequel trilogy maybe do, but I think the prequels would have been better if they had less budget and had to think about every effect shot and decide which ones were worth keeping or which ones could be achieved in another way, that's how film making used to work a script would be refined during production (sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse) but now that is less true, everything written on the page can be visualized but that doesn't mean it's all worth seeing.

These days you can make anything you want with cheap CGI, but you can just as easily make a crap film without CGI.

thecolorsblend2 said:


Esp since all effects (rubber masks, miniatures, CGI, whatever) all look fake to me anyway so why split hairs over which looks faker?


Really? you've never been fooled by a special effect? maybe you think you haven't because you think they're all so obvious but it's just the good ones are so good you don't notice them. When it comes down to it anything can look fake, but if it's done well it can all look real, it's just a matter of how much care is taken during production.

the worst effect in the prequels for me was the clone troopers, they were 100% CGI because it was easy, it would have looked better and probably been cheaper to produce 50 costumes and employ 50 extras, I just hate the shots in ROTS of Obi-Wan interacting with CG troopers they look so fake, but this is not a matter of a necessary use of CGI to complete the directors vision, it just shows a lack of care in the production because this isn't a choice of "which looks faker" it's a choice between real and fake.
Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link
thecolorsblend2 said:

And I think some of you have some really screwy ideas about CGI. It's a tool to achieve a certain illusion, same as any other from the filmmaking trade. If it's a choice between something looking exactly the way the director wants via CGI or else a hackjob, bastardized shadow of how he originally envisioned, I'll take CGI everytime.


I don't think anyone thinks CGI is bad, but there is a point where it overwhelms the movie. Look at a movie like T2, that is a perfect example where CGI makes the movie better, where the Robert Patrick T-1000 can do all these things on screen that wouldn't be possible in the 70's, especially when he reforms after being shot or something. Jurassic Park is another example where many dinosaurs were CGI'd to really give the movie that epic look that models may have not have achieved, as it would have been too expensive to build that many dinosaurs.

Where CGI goes wrong for me, is when it overwhelms the story & characters, and it becomes a big 'look how cool I can make this movie look' fest. You look at a movie like TPM, you have real locations like Tatooine, then you goto CGI environments like Kamino, Geonosis, Utapau, Mustafar, and just don't hold up as well compared to OT enviroments like Hoth and Endor.

I remember back in 1996, the huge summer movie to see was Independence Day, as the CGI wowed the crowd especially the White House Blowing up. That movie has not held up, essentially because the story & characters took a backseat to the CGI/Action fest that made movie-goers love it 12 summers ago. Now it is called one of those 'guilty pleasure' movies. Now those pre-CGI movies like Jaws, Star Wars, Raiders, and ET hold up much better simply because the characters and story were ALWAYS the #1 reason the movies were great.
Author
Time
Post link
not to be a nitpick, but the majority of the effects in Independance Day were practical models & pyrotechnics, including the white house. that was a BIG model that they really blew up (actually , they built two just in case the first one malfunctioned)

what made it look cgi was that the "wall of fire" was basically a composite of an actual fireball & actual models of buildings/cars/etc. that were shot seperately & composited together. It was actually pretty creative the way they shot that, as to get the fire to look like a wall moving up the street, the mounted the camera directly overhead facing straight down & set pyrotechnics off below it so as the fireball travelled up in real life, it travelled "horizontally" across the ground from the camera's point of view.

anyways, i'm in agreement with most here that cgi isn't all bad, it's just way overdone & often done poorly. & I DO much prefer practical effects whenever possible, but i'm also a diehard Godzilla & harryhausen fan, so....
Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link
I realize the purpose of this thread and I don't want to turn it into a PT apologetics thread but I gotta comment on some of this.

I don't think anyone thinks CGI is bad, but there is a point where it overwhelms the movie
(snip)
Where CGI goes wrong for me, is when it overwhelms the story & characters, and it becomes a big 'look how cool I can make this movie look' fest. You look at a movie like TPM, you have real locations like Tatooine, then you goto CGI environments like Kamino, Geonosis, Utapau, Mustafar, and just don't hold up as well compared to OT enviroments like Hoth and Endor.

I can understand that, but it seems to me that the prequel trilogy used it in a different way than a lot of action movies did. It was used as The Big Moment in a lot of movies in the past but TPM employed it in a way to establish (and embellish) a particular environment. A good example is Coruscant in TPM. It gives all the appearances of being the pinnacle of civilization and a place of hope for the lost and disenfranchised... which marks the contrast I think Lucas was shooting for with the rotting corruption that had spread so far in the Republic with only the powerful and wealthy voices being heard (even by the Jedi, ensconced as they were in their literal ivory tower), while "inconsequential" concerns from the likes of Queen Amidala being ignored, and nobodies like Anakin (a slave) and Jar Jar (an exile) being shut out completely.

These points aren't made exclusively by the technology but they're indispensable in bringing that point across by juxtaposing the expectation and (false) hope of Coruscant's image against the bureaucratic inefficiency created by the powermongers and the elite.

As for Mustafar and Geonosis (and maybe some of the others you mentioned), they included at least a few model shots embellished by CG trickery.

Really? you've never been fooled by a special effect?

Everyone's fooled sometimes. The point isn't about that, it's about the fact that some shots are blantantly effects shots. Whether it's with models and wires or with CGI, in short order you get to at least a few shots that scream "fake". This is true in the OT (with blue screens still somewhat visible in ROTJ's speeder bike chase) or the PT (Obi-Wan's eyeline with Jar Jar is off a few times in TPM). It doesn't ruin the moment for me, it just reminds me that I'm watching a film with a lot of effects. No big deal.
My preference is simple. I want remastered versions of precisely what we saw and heard for each Star Wars film on opening day.
Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link
I thought ID4 had really realistic effects and really well-rounded characters. People pick on that film because the action is so over the top, but its terrifically written and well acted. Its a complete dishonor to the humorous and likeable performances in that film to compare it the prequels. ID4 is a guilty pleasure, but its well above dreck like Attack of the Clones or Wing Commander, it actually has some genuine heart in it, and I think thats because its was one of Devlin/Emmerich's first and most personal projects (along with Stargate--another terrific and fun film, even though its not anything extraordinary, like ID4). To me, its everything a great summer blockbuster should be, like Iron Man or Jurassic Park or Pirates of the Carribbean, it entertains with eye candy but keeps the characters front and center and thats the reason why all these films are talked about.
Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link
I think people pick on that movie because of it's swiss cheese plot.

“I love Darth Editous and I’m not ashamed to admit it.” ~ADigitalMan

Author
Time
Post link
boba feta said:

I think people pick on that movie because of it's swiss cheese plot.
Yeah, and I just remember it being a silly movie. I don't remember disliking the effects, I just thought the movie was fluff.

Author
Time
Post link
Mielr said:

boba feta said:

I think people pick on that movie because of it's swiss cheese plot.
Yeah, and I just remember it being a silly movie. I don't remember disliking the effects, I just thought the movie was fluff.


Isn't that exactly what it was suppose to be? I think the directors even said at one point that it was suppose to be a modern day B movie. There are plenty of plot holes in that movie after all. I actually find ID4 to be a pretty entertaining film as long as I don't think about all that stuff. Even the PT doesn't reach that bar.

thecolorsblend2: Unfortunately, a lot of the elements you mention don't work either because the message is being delivered in an extremely poor fashion or it wasn't the director's intention (probably a little of both). Nobodies like Anakin because he's "the chosen one". How can anyone be told that at the age of 10 and then possibly be expected to keep their powers in check? Look at Akira for a perfect example. Teenager attains godly powers and ends up destroying half of Tokyo in the process of ascending. And as far as Jar Jar being an exile is concerned, he was given a pretty high position by the Queen herself. He was also the one person that wanted to give Palpatine full control. If anyone is to blame for Palpatine's rise though, it's Amidala with her no confidence vote in TPM.

But all that's way OT. I think the point is that a lot of things were done very unnecessarily. Look at the "Super Mario" chase through the factory in AOTC. What was that all about? Even Natalie Portman asked that in the behind the scenes footage because it made no sense. Quite simply, a lot of "story elements" just made no sense and then even more stuff seemed to be tacked on to try and make it fit with the OT. Then the OT had to be modified to try and make it fit with the PT. If a lot more thought had been put into the PT, it would have been very easy to make it fit with the OT without modifying the OT.
F Scale score - 3.3333333333333335

You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.

Pissing off Rob since August 2007.
Author
Time
Post link
I would agree that he's not the same filmmaker. I believe what changed him was success and the fact the he has raised three children (as you pointed out). It's not necessarily that he's any worse, he's just different. And that's for better or worse depending on whomever's point of view.

CO said:

sunday256 said:

Well that cluless filmmaker just so happend to make some of the most popular movies ever. Some of you guys need to get a grip. Stop taking all this crap you read and hear about so seriously.


Sunday, I think people who call Lucas a hack now are being too extreme, but in the same respect he is the not the same filmmaker that made our favorite movies from the late 70's/early 80's.

It happens to anyone, athletes, actors, musicians, they have a prime where their work is second to none, then once they reach stardom and have kids as Mickey said to Rocky in Rocky III, "You become civilized." You lose that eye of the tiger to put it metaphorically.

I look at Lucas like a great rock band like The Who or Led Zeppelin, has Pete Townshend written anything as great as Tommy or Quadrophenia in the past 20 years? Has Jimmy Page/Roger Plant recorded anything close to Stairway to Heaven in the past 20 years? The same goes for Lucas, he churned out Graffiti, Star Wars, then produced films like Empire & Raiders, and then he got divorced raised 3 daughters, and played it safe for the rest of his career.

George Lucas career is just like most directors,(with exception of a handful guys like Spielberg) who is just past his prime, and the difference is that Coppola and Depalma, other great directors from the 70's aren't making anymore movies that are extensions of their trilogies for people to compare them to, they are doing new work and most of it isn't as great as what they were doing 20-30 years ago. Oh yeah, Coppola did Godfather III! See what I mean?
Author
Time
Post link
Lucas had little to do with the films? Are you on crack? So what if he didn't direct ESTB and ROTJ. You think he just sat on his butt and had no say? That's a pretty assbackwards statement. I'm not defending George for ROTJ, but damn that's a stupid comment.

generalfrevious said:

Still, whether we like it or not, Lucas will be the silent culprit of the greatest crime in film history. And BTW, the SW trilogy is popular because Lucas had little to actually do with the films.
Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link
Just an FYI, the White House blowing up wasn't CGI, it was a model as it appears someone else reaffirmed.

Personally, I like what CGI can do. Models can be quite limiting, but at the same time they can look a whole lot more believable too. You get trade offs with these kinds of decisions.

CO said:

thecolorsblend2 said:

And I think some of you have some really screwy ideas about CGI. It's a tool to achieve a certain illusion, same as any other from the filmmaking trade. If it's a choice between something looking exactly the way the director wants via CGI or else a hackjob, bastardized shadow of how he originally envisioned, I'll take CGI everytime.


I don't think anyone thinks CGI is bad, but there is a point where it overwhelms the movie. Look at a movie like T2, that is a perfect example where CGI makes the movie better, where the Robert Patrick T-1000 can do all these things on screen that wouldn't be possible in the 70's, especially when he reforms after being shot or something. Jurassic Park is another example where many dinosaurs were CGI'd to really give the movie that epic look that models may have not have achieved, as it would have been too expensive to build that many dinosaurs.

Where CGI goes wrong for me, is when it overwhelms the story & characters, and it becomes a big 'look how cool I can make this movie look' fest. You look at a movie like TPM, you have real locations like Tatooine, then you goto CGI environments like Kamino, Geonosis, Utapau, Mustafar, and just don't hold up as well compared to OT enviroments like Hoth and Endor.

I remember back in 1996, the huge summer movie to see was Independence Day, as the CGI wowed the crowd especially the White House Blowing up. That movie has not held up, essentially because the story & characters took a backseat to the CGI/Action fest that made movie-goers love it 12 summers ago. Now it is called one of those 'guilty pleasure' movies. Now those pre-CGI movies like Jaws, Star Wars, Raiders, and ET hold up much better simply because the characters and story were ALWAYS the #1 reason the movies were great.
Author
Time
Post link
Unfortunately, a lot of the elements you mention don't work either because the message is being delivered in an extremely poor fashion or it wasn't the director's intention (probably a little of both).

Lucas doesn't put the movie on pause and scream his point but he's not terribly subtle about it. The point I was trying to make is that the CGI complements the story being told about a government that appears to be Utopia is actually so self-absorbed that they've long since abandoned everything but the pretense of caring about anybody those who can buy political influence (ie, a gigantic corporation such as the Trade Federation having Senators). On that note...

Nobodies like Anakin because he's "the chosen one". How can anyone be told that at the age of 10 and then possibly be expected to keep their powers in check? Look at Akira for a perfect example. Teenager attains godly powers and ends up destroying half of Tokyo in the process of ascending. And as far as Jar Jar being an exile is concerned, he was given a pretty high position by the Queen herself. He was also the one person that wanted to give Palpatine full control. If anyone is to blame for Palpatine's rise though, it's Amidala with her no confidence vote in TPM.

I meant they were both roundly ignored in TPM. They obviously found some level of acceptance in subsequent films... although that only came about because their Jedi or Naboo leaders disobeyed what the Jedi Council and the Senate had declared the partyline. Nobody in the Senate (aside from Zod the Limey) cared about the Naboo invasion or the slaughter of Republic citizens at the hands of a rogue corporation's private army. As for the Jedi Council, they didn't give a shit that Tatooine is a haven for slavery or that Naboo was essentially being held hostage so that the Federation could have a fatter bottomline this quarter.

It's cool if you don't dig the PT. A lot of people don't. And again, I'm not trying to hijack this thread but it amazes me that (no offense to you or any other member) some people can't see the obvious here.

But all that's way OT.

Agreed.

I think the point is that a lot of things were done very unnecessarily. Look at the "Super Mario" chase through the factory in AOTC. What was that all about?

It's hard to believe that some sort of fight wouldn't take place when a Republic senator and the apprentice of a Jedi the Separatists had just captured wander in to the main production facility of said Separatists war machine.

If we hold the OT to your same principle, I'd nominate the elimination of the Falcon vs. TIE fighter dog fight after Luke and co. escape from the Death Star. I always found it hard to believe that the Imperials really would've had enough time to scramble an entire squad of TIE fighters to intercept the escaping Falcon before it could make it to hyperspace. It seems like an excuse for another thrilling escape and a space battle, and little else. The same thing applies to the Falcon/space slug thing in ESB. That sequence doesn't tie directly in to the Rebels being pursued by the Empire so why have it? You could drop both sequences from the film without missing too much!

Of course, both sequences rock and nobody in their right mind would seriously suggest they don't belong in their respective movies. I'm just making a point here.

The SW films are, at the end of the day, adventure movies so you have to have action spectacles like that. Sometimes they're indespinsable to the plot, sometimes they aren't but they're fun... and that's the whole point.
My preference is simple. I want remastered versions of precisely what we saw and heard for each Star Wars film on opening day.
Author
Time
Post link
"Sentry ships" don't need to be scrambled. There's 3 or 4 Tie fighters on patrol near the death star in every establishing shot up to that point. The Falcon was bound to run into them.
Author
Time
Post link
I was just reading over at AICN how there's a 3D re-release of Romero's Dawn of the Dead in the works. 3D Star Wars was inevitably brought up and one of the talkbackers said the following:

"Lucas is not too pleased with this new 3D process. I read that it is taking far longer than expected and is costing an absolute fortune. That being said, I think that Star Wars in 3D will be incredible, imagine the space battles at the end of Jedi....wow....I'm just not holding my breath. I still think that it'll be a few years off yet."
Author
Time
Post link


ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY: When you were here at ShoWest three years ago, you talked about converting all six of the Star Wars films into 3-D. Is that something that's still going forward?
GEORGE LUCAS: It's still on. It's just that, technically, it's a much harder thing to pull off than we thought. So we've been working on how to get it done — we're still in the middle of R&D, so to speak. But we're getting closer now. The field [of 3-D] is opening up a little bit. It's a hard thing because it takes a lot of talented people — like, 100 or 150 — and since it's a craft that nobody's been trained to do before, it's a little tricky. So it's hard. But it'll get there.



That's from March 2008. I think it supports what you read.

They're still in the R&D phase. I don't see this happening for a long time. Maybe they'll pull the plug all together if the costs become too great.

"Well here's a big bag of rock salt" - Patton Oswalt

Author
Time
Post link
I'm wondering how this would work out in terms of a release. McCallum said that they're waiting until there are enough digital theaters out there, but even then, how would this work?

If they're in fact doing all six movies, could they make this all that much more than a novelty thing? How would the release schedule work? I don't think they could make it as big as the '97 SE was.
Author
Time
Post link
Yeah, I never considered that. All those glasses will get expensive if we're talking a world-wide release. Oh, how I yearn for a 3-D technique that doesn't require glasses. Probably won't get it until holograms are possible, though.
Author
Time
Post link
thecolorsblend2 said:

I think the point is that a lot of things were done very unnecessarily. Look at the "Super Mario" chase through the factory in AOTC. What was that all about?

It's hard to believe that some sort of fight wouldn't take place when a Republic senator and the apprentice of a Jedi the Separatists had just captured wander in to the main production facility of said Separatists war machine.


Funny thing that. I don't recall seeing that much in the way of war machines even being visible in those scenes. I remember Anakin's arm getting locked down by a mold and then his saber getting destroyed (so much for being the chosen one). The only place I really remember things looking like a production line were when 3PO's body and head were separated in the droid construction area.

thecolorsblend2 said:

If we hold the OT to your same principle, I'd nominate the elimination of the Falcon vs. TIE fighter dog fight after Luke and co. escape from the Death Star. I always found it hard to believe that the Imperials really would've had enough time to scramble an entire squad of TIE fighters to intercept the escaping Falcon before it could make it to hyperspace. It seems like an excuse for another thrilling escape and a space battle, and little else. The same thing applies to the Falcon/space slug thing in ESB. That sequence doesn't tie directly in to the Rebels being pursued by the Empire so why have it? You could drop both sequences from the film without missing too much!

Of course, both sequences rock and nobody in their right mind would seriously suggest they don't belong in their respective movies. I'm just making a point here.

The SW films are, at the end of the day, adventure movies so you have to have action spectacles like that. Sometimes they're indespinsable to the plot, sometimes they aren't but they're fun... and that's the whole point.


And now I will make a counterpoint.

As BaronLando pointed out, there are several visible sentry ships in all the shots of the death star leading up to that point. Combine that with the following exchange:

Tarkin: Are they away?
Voice on comm: They've just made the jump into hyperspace.
Tarkin to Vader: I'm taking an awful risk Vader. This had better work.

And then with Leia's tracking comment, it was quite obvious that the TIEs had been prepared beforehand to give them a sense of having to fight their way out. They were being tracked, so if they had just been able to fly off without encountering resistance, it would've definitely seemed easy to Han.

The space slug was just another example of how things aren't always as they seem and that there's no end to the amount of alien lifeforms in the galaxy. In other words, they're not all bipedal. And yes, it was a way to give the viewer a rest before throwing everyone back into the action. But since it wasn't "We'll just stop behind this pointless force field", it actually made a little bit of sense.

Here's an even more extreme example of "What the hell is this for?" from TPM. On Naboo, during the saber fight, Obi-Wan, Qui-Gon, and Darth Maul end up in an area that looks like it's for power generation. At some point, they're fighting down a hall that has pink shields for separating areas. What exactly is the purpose of these shields? What function are they really needed for on Naboo? Lucas and McCallum have been asked this question, in public, at least twice. Both times the answer was "They add dramatic tension by separating the foes from each other, but letting each other see their actions". Um, DUH! Again, we're not that stupid. What the questioner meant was "What is their purpose on the planet, not in filmese". That question, as far as I know, has still never been answered. And I personally think the explanation is lame.
F Scale score - 3.3333333333333335

You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.

Pissing off Rob since August 2007.
Author
Time
Post link
The explanation in the EU is that they aren't shields per se. They are scanning fields that try to detect any possible radiation leakage from the power core. The fields generated just happen to be dangerous to humans, who aren't even supposed to be there unless the whole thing is shut down. This is why I'm in the EU=Canon crowd. The other writers think through the things GL tends to ignore.
Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link
The force field/radiation scanner thing never really bothered me. It's clear what the dramatic purpose was for; the in-universe explanation doesn't trouble me. It's esoteric high tech something-or-other that Naboo engineers obviously realized they needed in that corridor. It fits with the mise en scene established in other sections of the generator complex so I buy it. Don't take this as sarcasm or a flame, but if the lack of explanation is upsetting, I've got no argument for you. The fact that we're never told why ESB's carbon freezing chamber is raised so high up off the ground (aside from the production designer's requirements) or why the edges don't have guard rails (aside from dramatic license required by the script) never bothered me.

It's like the power coupling for podracer engines or visible beams of light coming from blasters. They work the way Lucas says they work because he says they work that way.

This is why I'm in the EU=Canon crowd. The other writers think through the things GL tends to ignore.

EU=crapola. Droid Jedi, non-stop and unnecessary movie references and other junk. The only EU I've ever read that *felt* like Star Wars was Shadows of the Empire (which deserves a CG-animated movie) as well as the Han Solo and Thrawn trilogies (and even those were hit and miss). There's some okay stuff out there but most of it is dreck.
My preference is simple. I want remastered versions of precisely what we saw and heard for each Star Wars film on opening day.
Author
Time
Post link
thecolorsblend2 said:

The force field/radiation scanner thing never really bothered me. It's clear what the dramatic purpose was for; the in-universe explanation doesn't trouble me. It's esoteric high tech something-or-other that Naboo engineers obviously realized they needed in that corridor. It fits with the mise en scene established in other sections of the generator complex so I buy it. Don't take this as sarcasm or a flame, but if the lack of explanation is upsetting, I've got no argument for you. The fact that we're never told why ESB's carbon freezing chamber is raised so high up off the ground (aside from the production designer's requirements) or why the edges don't have guard rails (aside from dramatic license required by the script) never bothered me.

It's like the power coupling for podracer engines or visible beams of light coming from blasters. They work the way Lucas says they work because he says they work that way.


I think it can be assumed that there are no guard rails on the carbon freeze chamber because the controls are manually operated (Vader uses the Force to manipulate it). If someone falls in, they can be pulled out. I imagine an Ugnaut is pretty careful around it (they seem to be the ones in the area most, if not all, of the time). I also imagine that it's up on that platform to keep people from accidentally falling in. You have to walk up steps to get near it. It's not like you can just wander into the room and fall in. Kind of like how there are no guard rails on big oil wells. You have to climb a ladder to get inside one. If you're climbing the ladder, you obviously don't want something slowing you down once you get to the top.

As far as blasters go, apparently you didn't pay attention when reading Shadows of the Empire. It's a finding beam. You don't actually see the real laser, even though it comes right after the beam. Yes, it's a lame ass explanation that wasn't needed. It was put in for the bit head EU fans that always ask how you can see a laser in space. Same goes for Luke cutting through the magnetically shielded door with his lightsaber (same book). An unnecessary explanation that's easily filled in by fans (lightsabers can cut through anything, so they can cut through that). That lovely book has been responsible for more bullshit explanations that we don't need than anything.

I don't need everything explained. But when something feels so out of place that I'm asking "What's that for?", then it needs to have some kind of explanation. Sound in space does not bother me. Visible lasers do not bother me. Those things are fantastical elements that I can let slip. If I didn't, I wouldn't be watching a lot of sci-fi.
F Scale score - 3.3333333333333335

You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.

Pissing off Rob since August 2007.
Author
Time
Post link
I think it can be assumed that there are no guard rails on the carbon freeze chamber because the controls are manually operated

I wasn't referring to the fall Luke took. I meant the one Vader took when Luke knocked his ass off the platform during the lightsaber duel. You'd have thought there'd be a guard rail there... except the script required there not be one. So I go with it.

As far as blasters go, apparently you didn't pay attention when reading Shadows of the Empire

Oh I did, it's just that it's not a movie. If it ain't in the movies, I won't likely accept it.

That lovely book has been responsible for more bullshit explanations that we don't need than anything

Be that as it may, I'm just saying it's probably the best of the EU books and has the most "Star Wars" feel to me.
My preference is simple. I want remastered versions of precisely what we saw and heard for each Star Wars film on opening day.
Author
Time
Post link
Johnboy3434 said:

Cable-X1 said:

I agree that judging art is purely subjective, but as said above...that's getting to be an old argument for defending the PT. Have you ever taken an English literature class before? If you have, you've read the classics and if you had a teacher worth a damn, he or she would have imparted you with the wonderful ability to read between the lines and analyze such things as theme, metaphor and so on. The original SW is a archetype-laden story with some pretty deep thematic stuff at work. Where is that in the PT? Is it presented well? Is the storytelling style detrimental to the work as a whole? See when you look at it that way, the PT falls apart completely. Wanna debate further?


I wasn't necessarily defending the PT. I just used TPM as an example because I'm pretty sure most people here would be familiar with it. I was actually defending all forms of art that have been ignored by the so-called "intelligentsia". You know, the people who think they measure the worth of a piece of art by what can be read into it (in other words, how may blind guesses they have to make before they can justify its existence)? I've had plenty of Literature classes, and they all sucked (that's my subjective judgment). Since when have metaphors and themes made a quality work of art? I'll tell you what makes quality art: the enjoyment we, the audience, get out of it. If it doesn't entertain us, it's not worth shit. I don't care if your entire theory of existence, of all the world's problems, of life, the universe, and everything, is distilled into dramatic form. If we can't laugh, if we can't cry, if we can't cheer, then it was all a colossal waste of time. That's why one Ed Wood is worth a dozen Ernest Hemingway's. Ed made us laugh (however unintentionally), with his contrived plots, his unbelievable dialog, and his cheesy special effects. How many films have you seen that make you say, "I could do better than that!"? He made us feel good about ourselves. What did Hemingway do? He made us want to reenact his final moments.

I'm sorry if that was a little more aggressive than you expected, but you struck a nerve, there.


You're comparing Ed Wood to Ernest Hemingway?!?!? Oh man...that's fucked.
Author
Time
Post link
In the context of his post, I think he made a solid point.
My preference is simple. I want remastered versions of precisely what we saw and heard for each Star Wars film on opening day.