BedeHistory731

Oh joy, you’re back.

The Neimoidians, because their voices are really just this:

It was probably done more out of ignorance than malice, but it’s still awkward to have that in a movie with Watto and Jar-Jar (allegedly).

adywan said:

“Red R2” issue now fixed 😃

https://youtu.be/Vg5hg6SispQ

Bingo! That looks fantastic, Ady.

Ronster said:

…all I’m sayibg is “No! Get rid of it, it’s not helping the story” the story is good but having the planet there to explain the viewscreen ruins the story.

Well why wouldn’t you lead with that?

That was one fantastic preview! I know it’s really subtle, but the moving starfields make the cockpit and docking bay shots so much more dynamic. Also, removing the rat things entirely from the Mos Eisley entrance really improved the shot.

As for the red R2 unit, I can see the issue, but it doesn’t bother me in the slightest. Seeing it in split-screen with the original is probably the issue. If there’s another fix, I’d embrace it too.

StarkillerAG said:

Superweapon VII said:

SophieSopho said:

I don’t support “Birdemic: Shock and Terror” (2010). How can anybody like its poor special effects, wooden acting, and nonsensical plot.

Ironically?

Yeah, I think Sophie missed why everyone says Birdemic is a “great” movie.

If you want to complain about a Birdemic movie, complain about the “intentionally bad” sequel that just fell flat.

Speaking of “so bad it’s good” movies, The Disaster Artist whitewashed Tommy Wiseau and his awfulness (all present in the book). Just read the book or listen to the audiobook with Greg’s A-grade Tommy impression.

It gave us Creepio from Auralnauts, so the ends justify the means.

Omni said:

Check this twitter thread, very thorough: https://twitter.com/pabl0hidalgo/status/1427722793647427591?s=20

Thanks!

It’s no secret that each entry in the PT had extensive reshoots, with some more obvious than others. Things like terrible wigs, stand-ins, etc. definitely give it away. I was curious if anybody has picked apart the principal photography vs. reshoot ratio for those movies.

Y’know, as somebody who liked the Dark Horse comics from the ‘00s, reusing the name “Jabiim” for a largely-inconsequential place felt odd.

Hell, I too cringe at my r/SaltierThanKrayt act on here. This isn’t some awful hive of reactionaries just because they don’t like the new media coming out (save for a few posters who aren’t here anymore). This place doesn’t have that same “poisoned well” as YouTube or Reddit and it’s not worth it fighting political conflicts over a mediocre TV show.

Life’s too short and why be angry about that? I’ve also quit Reddit for the most part, which has improved my mood drastically. Message boards are much better.

Also, if you show a child doing these dark things, it’s too obvious to see the direction they will go down. The Good Son came off as cheesy for that reason.

Emre1601 said:

I’ve only watched the part of the video linked to in the opening post, and this is an interesting subject to me in that it also highlights what George failed to do or show onscreen in the Prequel films. And the continuing attempts since to fix, repair, or explain the shortcomings or problems with the Prequels in the ancillary series and material since. Whether that is 2003 Clone Wars (to an extent), the 2008 film, The Clone Wars series, Rebels, or Tales Of The Jedi and so on. Or official articles and interviews, and the slew of fan-made “George is a secret genius” or “Prequel deeper meaning” material such as Ring Theory, or overlong and videos pieces on fans simply “failing to understand the Prequel films”. None of which changes anything onscreen in the Prequels themselves.

Exactly this! Movies should not have to “make you do homework” to properly understand the themes and characters they’re trying to portray. The prequels require so much “homework” for appreciation like that.

That one uber prequel apologist, So Uncivilized, lost all credibility for me when he championed Nerdonymous’ video.

“Banana Man” Bill Olsen did so much for the preservation of Z-grade movies, it makes up for how cantankerous he could be towards customers and for all the offensive stuff he said on livestreams.

This screepcap of him is still very funny.

I’m just wondering if another “From a Certain Point of View” book will come out.

Ejn said:

BedeHistory731 said:

Never say in two hours what you can easily say in 30 minutes or less. Brevity makes points far more digestible and less cluttered.

I always see this coming from the same soys who think the RLM plinkett reviews of Star Wars are masterpieces despite being hours and hours long and containing about two minutes worth of substance.

Soys

LOLZ, way to discredit yourself immediately. And I don’t think the Plinkett reviews hold up well at all, outside of the bits that feel like the re-enactments from a ‘90s true crime show.

Never say in two hours what you can easily say in 30 minutes or less. Brevity makes points far more digestible and less cluttered.

StarkillerAG said:

However, I agree with AniStar that the cleanest solution is to just remove that line from ROTJ. Are we really so purist that we need to destroy the whole thematic value of ROTS’s ending just to avoid cutting even a single line from the OT?

Indeed.

“Do you remember your mother, your real mother?”
“Why are you asking me this?”
“I don’t remember my mother.”

Very simple, doesn’t lose much of the original’s meaning, and without destroying the thematic structure of another movie in the series. If one is to cut “jealous Han” later in that scene, they might as well cut Leia’s contradiction.

Are the reshoots as obvious as they were for the prequels?

It’s also directly lifted from Lego Star Wars II: The Original Trilogy.

Ok, maybe not as cartoonishly so, but still.

SparkySywer said:

BedeHistory731 said:

What’s conveyed by the writing, cinematography, editing, and cultural context > authorial intent.

I don’t know how useful of an analytical tool this is, but if disagreement between the author and audience is a miscommunication, then we should analytically look at a work both for its intended message and its received message, which are coequal.

That makes sense, the idea of miscommunication that takes into account audience and author perception. I tend to put more weight on audience perception, since it says far more about the effect the work has rather than its intentions. Still, authorial intent is necessary for a comprehensive understanding. Even if it is just one voice among many commentators.

It’s probably my own experiences in fandoms that have me being initially dismissive of authorial intent, especially in fandoms where authors cling to a creator’s every word as gospel and beg for them to explain away all the sense of mystery and imagination in the worlds they’ve created. The creators’ words should be seen as fallible, ever-evolving, and constantly in conversation with public perception. What an author says on release day is likely to be different from what you say on a making-of documentary years later.

What’s conveyed by the writing, cinematography, editing, and cultural context > authorial intent.

If anything, the 1080p version will be closer to purist in terms of timing (no extended scenes) and music choices (duel music being optional).

Anakin Starkiller said:

Geez, I think this whole dyad solution is a bit convoluted and unnecessary. The dyad works with Ben and Rey because there’s an actual connection as they communicate the Force regularly and work together in the end to bring down Papa Palpy. Leia does none of that. The whole drawing of attention to her in RotJ feels like a narrative dead-end. You can’t just say “oh btw she’s your Force-sister” and then do nothing with it.

So, how would you remove the connection?