DominicCobb

Chlorine said:

DominicCobb said:
When it came to ESB and ROTJ, obviously he had others write those scripts entirely.

I was under the impression that he wrote full scripts for both films, but had other writers do subsequent drafts.

I fucked up, what I meant was that he had others write entire scripts for those.

He wrote a couple drafts on Empire after Brackett passed and before Kasdan came on and then he again wrote with Kasdan on Jedi. The difference I was trying to point out being that on Star Wars he was the only one who wrote any drafts while on the other two that wasn’t the case.

He was never a really great writer overall (he’s always been better at some aspects) nor a great director of actors. It really comes down to that he had a lot more critical voices at the time. He handed the original SW script around to his peers constantly and really honed it down to what it ended up being from the craziness that it started out as, which was far closer to the messiness of the prequel scripts (which likely didn’t have very many revisions at all). When it came to ESB and ROTJ, obviously he had others write those scripts entirely. Again for the actors, he was pretty lax about actors rewriting dialogue during the original film (whereas I doubt many of the actors felt comfortable trying to change things while shooting the PT), and then again on the other two he didn’t even direct them. Editing wise it’s the same idea. For the original film he screened it to all his peers and they trashed it and he took notes.

So I’d ultimately say that the idea that he was surrounded by too many yes men is true and that was the root source of the problems, though I wouldn’t necessarily say that he purposefully created that environment in which no one would say no, I think it just kind of happened because people just assumed he was a visionary that’d be able to make OT-level films on his own. And I do tend to think he’s a brilliant visionary but maybe not the greatest filmmaker. He’s talented in many ways as a filmmaker but not perfect and benefits a lot from skilled collaborators.

Sougouk said:

nickyd47 said:

Sougouk said:

dahmage said:

SilverWook said:

dahmage said:

i wonder if they will ever perfect behind-your-face 3D. then things really could sneak up on you in movies.

They tested Feel A Round movies in the 70’s, but it was too intense for average movie goers. 😉
https://youtu.be/TCq_nzlou0Q

LOL, that is insane! popcorn for $1? :p

Yeah, for 4$ you get to see a movie and eat a small popcorn. Not bad.

I paid 16.25$ for my 3D IMAX ticket of The Force Awakens

Yeah, as did I. I just wish the movie theaters would have reserved seats for all of their rooms, and not just the AVX/IMAX rooms.

Really? For me, nowadays I find it hard to find theaters that don’t have reserved seating for all of their screens.

haha

thejediknighthusezni said:

DominicCobb said:

thejediknighthusezni said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

Jetrell Fo said:

I don’t believe they’re debating it warbler. I believe husezni is speaking in layman’s terms to explain what had been posted and coffee encouraged the sharing of opinions even if they weren’t the same as others.

This is just how I am seeing it though. I could very well be wrong.

I encouraged him to give advice actually pertaining to my situation if he could, (even if it was just how many volts of electricity I should subject myself to). Instead, it seems he decided to defend himself and/or offer completely irrelevant advice about questioning everything. ¯\ _(ツ)_/¯

I meant to convey what is very often forgotten. Solving a problem requires clarity and freedom from deception and deceivers.

Deception from people like you with twisted views on the world and how people should hate themselves so they more closely align with those views?

Other than you, everyone else giving advice is doing so from the perspective of what would be best for coffee, not for their “morally narcissistic” views.

I’ve deliberately avoided specific advice in this matter to encourage the pursuit of what Coffee knows to be True.

Hatred for one’s self is most often an indication that one is not standing with honesty or courage for Truth.

Just because your “advice” isn’t explicit doesn’t mean the implications aren’t clear as day. Coffee’s hating himself based on the warped and extreme views that have been seared into his brain by a thoughtless group masquerading for “truth” when really all they’re doing is enforcing their own stringent and hateful ideals (based on strained interpretations from an archaic text) on innocent minds. You’re a part of that odious group and honestly you can fuck right off. If God exists and is as loving as his followers say he is, he does not approve of your disgusting and spiteful behavior and devious misrepresentations of words, and he’ll surely send you straight down to where you and your other hateful “followers” belong.

CatBus said:

DominicCobb said:

CatBus said:

DominicCobb said:

CatBus said:

DominicCobb said:

the north started the war

April 12, 1861, the first shots fired were not by the Union. The “War of Northern Aggression” is exactly as much of a misnomer as it seems.

Like I said, the phrase is silly, but the South didn’t come knocking on the North’s door, it was kinda closer to the other way around.

I’ve been to Fort Sumter (Charleston is really quite a beautiful city), so I understand that kerfuffle and I think I get where you’re coming from in regards to calling them “terrorists,” but I think that’s pushing it a bit. Point being, there wouldn’t be a war if the Union hadn’t decided to take back the South. Don’t take this for me saying they shouldn’t have, I just mean from the eyes of a southern soldier, they were defending themselves.

Actually I called the post-Civil War mob of cop-killers and vigilantes who got a statue honoring them terrorists. The Confederacy was what I called a white supremacist uprising (who only later turned into terrorists in the form of the Klan and the losers behind this statue).

Fair enough.

The whole point of the Ft. Sumter reference was that the Confederates started shooting at the Union long before the Union ever decided to take back the South. The North likely would have attacked the South first, if they’d had that opportunity–but the Confederates simply beat them to the punch. The Confederacy unambiguously attacked first, at Ft. Sumter.

No doubt, but even though that means they literally “started the war,” in the broader sense I think it’s fair to say the Union was responsible for the conflict. In regards to Ft. Sumter, this wasn’t the South trying to take control of northern territory. It was in SC and if the Union didn’t want a fight there, they would have left it.

It was federal property. Even granting the fairly tall order that secession was legal in the first place, South Carolina would still only have the authority over its own territory. They attacked a part of the Union that was completely surrounded by Confederate territory, but it was still Union territory.

I don’t deny this. I just mean, in the broader scope of things, from their perspective they wanted the all of the south to be the CSA and that was that. The war started when the Union wouldn’t budge and then decided to take the south back.

Again, I’m not siding with the Confederates on this but if we’re talking about the soldiers you have to look at it from their point of view. They weren’t all demons, and just because slavery was a big part of the war doesn’t mean we can spit on their collective graves. Now I’m not saying that that is what removing the statues is doing, but it’s something that careful thought should be put into. It’s not a black and white situation.

“set”

thejediknighthusezni said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

Jetrell Fo said:

I don’t believe they’re debating it warbler. I believe husezni is speaking in layman’s terms to explain what had been posted and coffee encouraged the sharing of opinions even if they weren’t the same as others.

This is just how I am seeing it though. I could very well be wrong.

I encouraged him to give advice actually pertaining to my situation if he could, (even if it was just how many volts of electricity I should subject myself to). Instead, it seems he decided to defend himself and/or offer completely irrelevant advice about questioning everything. ¯\ _(ツ)_/¯

I meant to convey what is very often forgotten. Solving a problem requires clarity and freedom from deception and deceivers.

Deception from people like you with twisted views on the world and how people should hate themselves so they more closely align with those views?

Other than you, everyone else giving advice is doing so from the perspective of what would be best for coffee, not for their “morally narcissistic” views.

CatBus said:

DominicCobb said:

CatBus said:

DominicCobb said:

the north started the war

April 12, 1861, the first shots fired were not by the Union. The “War of Northern Aggression” is exactly as much of a misnomer as it seems.

Like I said, the phrase is silly, but the South didn’t come knocking on the North’s door, it was kinda closer to the other way around.

I’ve been to Fort Sumter (Charleston is really quite a beautiful city), so I understand that kerfuffle and I think I get where you’re coming from in regards to calling them “terrorists,” but I think that’s pushing it a bit. Point being, there wouldn’t be a war if the Union hadn’t decided to take back the South. Don’t take this for me saying they shouldn’t have, I just mean from the eyes of a southern soldier, they were defending themselves.

Actually I called the post-Civil War mob of cop-killers and vigilantes who got a statue honoring them terrorists. The Confederacy was what I called a white supremacist uprising (who only later turned into terrorists in the form of the Klan and the losers behind this statue).

Fair enough.

The whole point of the Ft. Sumter reference was that the Confederates started shooting at the Union long before the Union ever decided to take back the South. The North likely would have attacked the South first, if they’d had that opportunity–but the Confederates simply beat them to the punch. The Confederacy unambiguously attacked first, at Ft. Sumter.

No doubt, but even though that means they literally “started the war,” in the broader sense I think it’s fair to say the Union was responsible for the conflict. In regards to Ft. Sumter, this wasn’t the South trying to take control of northern territory. It was in SC and if the Union didn’t want a fight there, they would have left it.

CatBus said:

DominicCobb said:

the north started the war

April 12, 1861, the first shots fired were not by the Union. The “War of Northern Aggression” is exactly as much of a misnomer as it seems.

Like I said, the phrase is silly, but the South didn’t come knocking on the North’s door, it was kinda closer to the other way around.

I’ve been to Fort Sumter (Charleston is really quite a beautiful city), so I understand that kerfuffle and I think I get where you’re coming from in regards to calling them “terrorists,” but I think that’s pushing it a bit. Point being, there wouldn’t be a war if the Union hadn’t decided to take back the South. Don’t take this for me saying they shouldn’t have, I just mean from the eyes of a southern soldier, they were defending themselves.

joefavs said:

Catalyst has been one of my favorites so far. I was actually a little bit disappointed with Krennic’s role in the movie because he was so charismatic in the book.

Same. Mendolsohn is great but the character mostly feels wasted. I think his first scene is really the only interesting one he gets, unfortunately.

I can see where the idea comes from, I just find it hard to believe.

I think that’s a pretty silly interpretation, honestly.

As much as I’m a leery about Confederate pride (which nowadays shouldn’t really exist), I do think they should be careful. The rebels weren’t nazis, they were Americans. Not everyone was fighting to keep their slaves (just as not every union soldier was fighting to free their slaves). I think I agree here with Warb, the Civil War was a lot more complicated than a “white supremacist uprising.” In the south they call it the war of northern aggression, which I think is pretty silly but it’s a good reminder that they seceded, and then the north started the war. For many southern soldiers, they were fighting for their freedom (and yeah fuck them if it was freedom to own slaves but a lot of them didn’t see it that way, the south was their home and if they were now a part of the CSA they were going to fight for that).

All she said was that they aren’t going to do any more revisions, which is pretty much just common sense and shouldn’t be news to anyone.

Anchorhead said:

Having gone deep into Rogue One, I thought I’d give this a look as well.

I’m unfamiliar with Luceno’s work. Has anyone read this yet or have any insight on his style. I’m really mostly interested in Krennic and Galen. I’m unfamiliar with the last two prequels, but I do recognize a few of the location names (per Wookiepedia) as having shown up in Prequel discussions.
I’ll skip it if it’s going to be prequel-centric.

Catalyst is really solid. Krennic and Galen are honestly much more interesting there than in the film proper. Much of the novel takes place in the PT era, but there isn’t a terrible lot of connection.

doubleofive said:

Star Wars is no longer in the Top 10 Domestic Gross list.

Sounds like time for a rerelease!

Or it could be the people who think he’s strongly implying that it’s GL don’t know what they’re talking about? Maybe I’m missing something but I’m pretty sure Hidalgo is the one who works at Lucasfilm, not anyone here.

Hidalgo did not mention Lucas and I see no evidence whatsoever to suggest he is still involved.

PTOTST on Nickelback, Comic Sans, wet socks, mosquitos, cancer, etc.: “love it, just the best!”

SilverWook said:

Not sure I like the severed head assassin robot shtick. And the penis joke just seemed gratuitous. I almost did a spit take when I heard it.

I kinda like him. He’s like a classic SJ villain. The penis joke made me laugh, though probably more from the surprise of it than anything.

And just who was that mysterious creature giving directions outside the bar?

Don’t know. If it was an old character, I didn’t notice.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Jack is dead at the end (and Ashi takes his place or something), but yeah I think they’ve probably done their service to the harakiri/seppuku possibility. Which is pretty cool honestly because it’s such a big part of samurai culture but was obviously never even something that would have been so much as mentioned on the show when it was more kid-aimed.

suspiciouscoffee said:

Episode over. Really got scared at the end there, but all is well. I bet that scene makes me more likely to be wrong about how the season ends though (have I posted my end speculation here before?)

Don’t think so?

Another great episode. Loved all the returning characters and the end was fantastic. Can’t wait to see where the final episodes takes us (I presume Jack’s allies team up with him to face Aku?).

Hal 9000 said:

I recommended the show to a friend of mine and showed him a few episodes from season 1, and suggested that he save ‘Jack and the Traveling Creatures’ for last, prior to heading into the new Season 5. I hope we get to see Jack defeat the guardian and live up to the prophesied ‘conquering king’ visage we glimpsed after their first encounter.

Me too, though I’m worried the mention of Aku destroying all the time portals includes that one.

SkyderHouseMafia said:

Mocata said:

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly - all the points

I’ve only seen around 350 films, but so far, to me, the entire graveyard sequence is the greatest piece of cinema ever. The incredible shots, amazing music, mathematical editing, great revelations…

Really? Well I’ve seen at least 5 times that number of films and I’d probably say the best sequence in cinema ever is…

…hmm wait you might be on to something.

flametitan said:

DominicCobb said:

I’m pretty sure he said he wanted the originals actually.

He sent slightly mixed signals. There’s the tweet where he said he wants his 70’s movies to look like 70’s movies, but I also seem to remember a tweet where he said that if he were the one to decide if the theatrical cuts were released, they wouldn’t be.

I don’t remember that one and honestly find it pretty hard to believe.