Gross but at least that will make it easy to recreate OT era subs for any edits. HATED the yellow theatrical subs for this.
The yellow would have been easy to change for a fan edit. But now, every time you want to watch it unedited, you’ll see something that you’ll hate far, far more.
Watching Solo on Blu-ray, and have to wonder, what the fuck is up with the alien subtitles?
Are they not the same as in the theatrical version?
Nope, just run-of-the-mill soft (I assume) subtitles.
Watching Solo on Blu-ray, and have to wonder, what the fuck is up with the alien subtitles?
“”You should probably put that in double quotes man lol””
Mfm, I mean this sincerely, but it’s not that we don’t care that you’re not doing good. We, or at least I, care. We, or at least dahmage, think you’re fantastic. It’s just that we don’t know what to say to you in this thread, because we know you’ll immediately shoot it down.
Pretty much. Emotional support is a two way street.
I don’t see how any of my last couple posts were detached from reality.
You were basically ignoring the actual content of my posts just to misanthropically argue with them.
Not really. I’m glad you’re here to read my mind, though.
No mind reading necessary, you’ve been unnecessarily arguing with each of my posts, whether relevant or not. Handman’s right, this isn’t the place.
I don’t see how any of my last couple posts were detached from reality.
You were basically ignoring the actual content of my posts just to misanthropically argue with them.
The fact of the matter is if you’re stuck in the dumps, you can wait for “life” to miraculously give you a hand (highly unlikely), or you can get off your ass and try to help yourself.
I’m not complaining till the end of time, just till the end of my miserable life.
As the person in question, I don’t see what the difference is.
Shooting down every possible statement with nihilism isn’t exactly emotionally supportive. I don’t think persistent pessimism is really going to get you anywhere.
I was shooting down one type of statement with realism.
Pessimism can be equally as detached from reality as optimism, if not moreso.
I don’t know. I just think that the misery that life doles out to people is so varying that making any kind of general statement is a waste of time.
Any old asshole, as you say, who’s putting in no effort but is living swell, that guy is irrelevant to the question of “life’s misery,” and whether “things get better.” Random shit happens, whatever, but these hypothetical random asshole doesn’t have to worry about things getting better in the first place. The fact of the matter is if you’re stuck in the dumps, you can wait for “life” to miraculously give you a hand (highly unlikely), or you can get off your ass and try to help yourself. The alternative, doing nothing and complaining about your miserable life until the end of time, is only going to make things worse for you.
Shooting down every possible statement with nihilism isn’t exactly emotionally supportive. I don’t think persistent pessimism is really going to get you anywhere.
That’s not even necessarily true either. There’s plenty of assholes out there living easy, care-free lives whilst putting forth absolutely no effort.
That’s irrelevant to what we’re talking about.
I never said it was a guarantee. The only guarantee is that things won’t get any better if you don’t put in any effort.
Yeah, it’s not true that you won’t meet someone. It’s just hard not knowing who, when, or where that is so it feels a long way off. But in any case, it really is better that you got through this with her now rather than stringing yourself along forever.
I agree with most of what you say in the second half of this, but I object to the “It gets better” notion that people like to share all the time. Sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn’t. I think it’s unhelpful to pretend that it’s a given that life is headed in an ultimately positive direction. That’s not even me being pessimistic, that’s just reality. Things don’t always turn out well in the end.
It depends. If you just sit alone and wallow in your misery, nothing’s going to get better. But there are certainly active ways that you can get out, get over with it, and move on. You just need to be willing to make that step. Not saying things will automatically get better, but if you don’t try, they definitely won’t.
alternate BD cover art:
https://www.starwars.com/news/solo-a-star-wars-story-custom-blu-ray-cover
Legend
It looks like that assbag created another account
What are you getting out of this?
The “explanation” given in Star Wars is by no means scientific. And the idea that in fantasy you can’t explain magic is a rule that you just made up and is far from always true.
Personally I do not think film genre classification should be constricted by the apparently rather narrow rules set forth by the publishing industry. To say that a space opera is only sci-fi and therefore has no elements whatsoever of any other genre just seems patently false to me. You state yourself that the genre was born out of planetary romance. Well then, would you mind telling me what what the genre of romance is?
If we’re going to operate solely with in established definitions, here’s from Wikipedia:
Space opera is a subgenre of science fiction that emphasizes space warfare, melodramatic adventure, interplanetary battles, chivalric romance, and risk-taking.
Hmm, chivalric romance…
Romance or chivalric romance is a type of prose and verse narrative that was popular in the aristocratic circles of High Medieval and Early Modern Europe. They were fantastic stories about marvel-filled adventures, often of a chivalric knight-errant portrayed as having heroic qualities, who goes on a quest… Romances reworked legends, fairy tales, and history to suit the readers’ and hearers’ tastes…
(interestingly enough the page goes on to reference Tolkien and The Tempest…)
Now about “planetary romance”
Planetary romance is a subgenre of science fiction or science fantasy
Science fantasy?
Science fantasy is a mixed genre within the umbrella of speculative fiction which simultaneously draws upon and/or combines tropes and elements from both science fiction and fantasy. In a science fiction story the world is scientifically possible, while a science fantasy world contains elements which violate the scientific laws of the real world. Nevertheless the world of science fantasy is logical and often is supplied with science-like explanations of these violations.
Weird.
Side note: Wikipedia actually presents a convincing argument for Star Wars fitting best into another genre: mythopoeia (a phrase created by Tolkien).
genres are used to provide a classification for a movie, so in my mind they are fluid.
For example.
if you are trying to decide what part of a product catalog to list it in, you will be using one set of criteria, and will probably list it as Sci Fi
if you are talking to a friend and comparing Star Wars to any other sci-fi movie, you are then more likely to reach for more descriptive, specific genres, and will say that Star wars is more of a Space Fantasy than your typical sci-fi story.
One of the key tropes/hallmarks that makes most Epic Fantasy is the nature of the forces of evil. Not only is their leader corrupt and twisted, but the forces themselves are corrupt and twisted. In both mind and body. At times they stories verge on horror due to the nature of the evil that infest the armies and agents of the chief antagonist. And typically the side of good is relying on some great talisman. This deep and pervasive evil is completely missing in Star Wars. Palpatine is relying on the force, but also on human frailties. He plays politics and uses his skill in that area to maintain control while pretending to be the puppet instead of the puppet master. Stormtroopers are just soldiers. It is about humans subverted by an evil leader, not by evil itself which is where most fantasy takes you. The struggle in fantasy brings the good and evil battle into the world where Star Wars puts the battle internal to each individual. So to me, Star Wars is nothing like any fantasy story I’ve encountered. It is too rooted in reality.
In the OT at least, nothing of what you said about Palpatine is true. He is everything the corrupt and twisted force of evil you describe. Whether the stormtroopers are just soldiers doesn’t matter, as we don’t know anything about their nature. Although if you want to bring the prequels into it, the clones are very much suggested to be twisted corrupt drones who operate on Palpatine’s whim.
And the battle of good vs. evil is not just internal in Star Wars. The Force is explicitly a power that binds the fate of the galaxy together. Palpatine is not just “an evil leader,” he is a literal Force for evil itself - the dark side.
You also seem to have a weird definition for fantasy, wherein only the most rigid and narrow storytelling aspects fit the genre, whereas with your definition of sci-fi, pretty much anything goes. I guess I just don’t know How It Works when you’re in the unimpeachable world of publishing.
Just pure lunacy. It is one thing to disagree about what the primary genre is, but to pretend like it is only one genre, with no elements of any other genre present is just ridiculous. Either you’re being willfully ignorant/obtuse, or you seriously need educate yourself better on Lucas’s influences. He wasn’t just taking from “space operas,” and I think you know it.
Yes, but when you are talking about SF vs. fantasy, he was only taking from SF. I have never heard of a single fantasy that inspired him. Not one. Myths, yes. Samurai, yes, Cambell, yes. Fantasy, no. When it comes to genre, Star Wars is 100% science fiction with no fantasy influences at all. Not one. And as I’ve pointed out many times, myths and legends and even religion has been fodder for science fiction forever. He specifically drew from Flash Gordon (which was a copy of Buck Rogers so even if he didn’t directly borrow from Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon had already done that), Asimov’s Foundation, Herbert’s Dune, and Star Trek (which itself was a copy of Forbidden Planet - at least partially). The Star Wars universe benefits from this and the technology is solid and realistic (as much as any science fiction is).
To say that Lucas took more from Asimov than fantasy is not only absurd on the face it of, but factually untrue. I don’t recall ever hearing that Lucas was inspired by Foundation. There doesn’t seem to be any influence from Star Trek that I can tell (besides what not to do), and I’ll give you Forbidden Planet, but even then we mustn’t forget is just an adaptation of The Tempest.
On the other hand, one of Star Wars’s most well documented influences was Hidden Fortress, a fantastical fairy tale. Little spoken of, but Lucas also screened Fellini’s Satyricon - a fantasy drama - for his crew during the production of the original film. Not to mention Wizard of Oz, whose similarities in storytelling to Star Wars are incredibly obvious. With the myths and legends of Campbell, I’d think those all fall under the purview of fantasy (even if many weren’t technically written as such at the time, they have become the basis for the storytelling and structure of the fantasy genre). And then there’s, of course, Tolkien - not only is it common knowledge that Lucas took inspiration from him (and it’s easy to see the parallels), but there’s direct evidence of such in the third draft script (a near direct lift from the Hobbit):
BEN
Good morning!LUKE
What do you mean, ‘good morning’? Do you mean that it is a good morning for you, or do you wish me a good morning, although it is obvious I’m not having one, or do you find that mornings in general are good?BEN
All of them altogether.Your take that the Jedi are wizards ignores the decades of similar characters in science fiction. Your take that the force is magic ignores the decades of fantastic powers in characters in science fiction. Your take that the story structure is a fantasy quest ignores the decades of science fiction quest stories. You are focused on it being fantasy because Lucas said so and have this image of science fiction as a genre based on realistic science and we all know how well Lucas can BS and very little science fiction is based on realistic science but rather pseudoscience extrapolated from possibilities that can range from likely to near impossible. There is nothing in Star Wars that deviates from the Space Opera standards.
It’s one thing to say that none of the fantastical things in Star Wars disqualifies it as sci-fi, because there’s precedent for those things in sci-fi. But it’s another thing entirely to pretend that the fanatical things in Star Wars have nothing to do with fantasy at all and are “100% sci-fi.” No one in their right mind would look at a wizard character and think first of the handful of examples of that from “space operas.” That’s a fantasy archetype, plain and simple. To say it’s not is intellectually dishonest, at best. Anyone with any bit of sense would recognize that Ben Kenobi fits far more into the mould of Gandalf and Merlin than Gary Mitchell.
Which is to say nothing of the other genres that Star Wars encompasses. To simplify it all as “space opera” is incredibly reductive. And then to say that because it is “space opera” makes it 100% sci-fi is incredibly debatable. If anything I’d say space opera is too diverse a style to shoehorn into merely a sub-genre of sci-fi. And I really don’t give a shit how Amazon classifies them. There is no remotely infallible way to label and categorize everything. Especially once you have things that straddle multiple definitions, it’s entirely unfair to pretend like they can fit into just one category and fit perfectly there.
So we have one line of dialog in one version of the script that was cut. Okay. What other way did Tolkien influence Star Wars?
The influence is clear. The wizened mentor. The nobody kid hero. The secret mission to destroy an evil and powerful weapon. The rogue in the bar. Etc. Much of the commonalities are fantasy/fairy tale tropes and not specific to Tolkien but they are fantasy/fairy tale storytelling tropes and they are in Star Wars.
And I own Hidden Fortress and it is not a fantasy. Just a solid samurai drama.
Since apparently it’s a requirement to talk about it, yes I own it too and have seen it multiple times. Calling it a “samurai drama” is somewhat inaccurate, yes there are samurai in it but it is very firmly a fairy tale story with a mystical vibe (even if admittedly there are no explicit supernatural elements - though there are other Kurosawa and samurai pictures that contain as much).
From Foundation comes the galactic empire. Tyrannical Emperors. Great Imperial fleets fighting rebellion… basically most of the setting.
I’ve never heard of Lucas taking inspiration from Foundation. The similarities you state are things that are pretty common in all different types of genres, not specifically sci-fi. It’s entirely likely that both Lucas and Asimov took inspiration from historical and otherwise mythical Empires.
From Dune you get a desert planet, mystic religions with strange powers, the voice, and a young boy thrust into the spot light.
I’d say Dune faces a similar question to Star Wars in regards to genre classification.
From Hidden Fortress you get the journey (one of the drafts is virtually a direct copy of Hidden Fortress) and the droids (typical Japanese comic relief characters). And there is so much taken from Flash Gordon (Which I would say is the main inspiration for the entire idea of Star Wars) which has Ming the merciless, princesses, and epic fight against incredible odds, and so much more. Flash Gordon runs closer to (but not overlapping) fantasy than Star Wars does. Lucas made Star Wars much more grounded, gritty, and realistic.
Again, Flash Gordon is somewhat of a genre-bender. It fits into “space opera” but that is a very kitchen-sink sort of category, and not wholly science fiction, despite what Amazon and bookstores tell you.
And while it is true that Lucas started out wanting to simply do Flash Gordon, what he eventually came up with was much more unique and a pastiche of loads of other things - not just space opera serials. I’d say Star Wars’s rugged, grounded approach has more to do with the influence of western, war films and other non-genre pictures than sci-fi works. Remember that at the time Lucas’s decision to make it “gritty” was going against the grain of typical sci-fi.
I’ve always taken Owen’s use of the word Wizard in referring to Ben as an insult and not a reflection of his role in the story. In the Campbell structure, he is the mentor. He is less magical than he is mysterious. I’ve always considered the Jedi as powerful warriors and see the little force tricks as nothing terribly important for pinning the genre. In the end, nothing about the story is determined by exhibitions of the force. And wizard’s don’t typically do battle with swords. Ben is an old knight, not an old wizard. He is more veteran samurai than Merlin.
Yoda literally outright dispels the notion that Jedi are simply “powerful warriors.” As I’ve said before, the story is all about the Force, far beyond the “little tricks” you mention. And using a sword is by no means a disqualification for being a wizard. Not to mention, what you claim he is instead - a samurai - still has nothing to do with sci-fi. So any reasonable person would recognize him as a samurai-esque wizard, and nothing at all like the “ESP” using characters in other sci-fi you’ve mentioned (there are essential zero similarities of any importance to Gary Mitchell, who you constantly bring up).
Just pure lunacy. It is one thing to disagree about what the primary genre is, but to pretend like it is only one genre, with no elements of any other genre present is just ridiculous. Either you’re being willfully ignorant/obtuse, or you seriously need educate yourself better on Lucas’s influences. He wasn’t just taking from “space operas,” and I think you know it.
Yes, but when you are talking about SF vs. fantasy, he was only taking from SF. I have never heard of a single fantasy that inspired him. Not one. Myths, yes. Samurai, yes, Cambell, yes. Fantasy, no. When it comes to genre, Star Wars is 100% science fiction with no fantasy influences at all. Not one. And as I’ve pointed out many times, myths and legends and even religion has been fodder for science fiction forever. He specifically drew from Flash Gordon (which was a copy of Buck Rogers so even if he didn’t directly borrow from Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon had already done that), Asimov’s Foundation, Herbert’s Dune, and Star Trek (which itself was a copy of Forbidden Planet - at least partially). The Star Wars universe benefits from this and the technology is solid and realistic (as much as any science fiction is).
To say that Lucas took more from Asimov than fantasy is not only absurd on the face it of, but factually untrue. I don’t recall ever hearing that Lucas was inspired by Foundation. There doesn’t seem to be any influence from Star Trek that I can tell (besides what not to do), and I’ll give you Forbidden Planet, but even then we mustn’t forget is just an adaptation of The Tempest.
On the other hand, one of Star Wars’s most well documented influences was Hidden Fortress, a fantastical fairy tale. Little spoken of, but Lucas also screened Fellini’s Satyricon - a fantasy drama - for his crew during the production of the original film. Not to mention Wizard of Oz, whose similarities in storytelling to Star Wars are incredibly obvious. With the myths and legends of Campbell, I’d think those all fall under the purview of fantasy (even if many weren’t technically written as such at the time, they have become the basis for the storytelling and structure of the fantasy genre). And then there’s, of course, Tolkien - not only is it common knowledge that Lucas took inspiration from him (and it’s easy to see the parallels), but there’s direct evidence of such in the third draft script (a near direct lift from the Hobbit):
BEN
Good morning!LUKE
What do you mean, ‘good morning’? Do you mean that it is a good morning for you, or do you wish me a good morning, although it is obvious I’m not having one, or do you find that mornings in general are good?BEN
All of them altogether.
Your take that the Jedi are wizards ignores the decades of similar characters in science fiction. Your take that the force is magic ignores the decades of fantastic powers in characters in science fiction. Your take that the story structure is a fantasy quest ignores the decades of science fiction quest stories. You are focused on it being fantasy because Lucas said so and have this image of science fiction as a genre based on realistic science and we all know how well Lucas can BS and very little science fiction is based on realistic science but rather pseudoscience extrapolated from possibilities that can range from likely to near impossible. There is nothing in Star Wars that deviates from the Space Opera standards.
It’s one thing to say that none of the fantastical things in Star Wars disqualifies it as sci-fi, because there’s precedent for those things in sci-fi. But it’s another thing entirely to pretend that the fanatical things in Star Wars have nothing to do with fantasy at all and are “100% sci-fi.” No one in their right mind would look at a wizard character and think first of the handful of examples of that from “space operas.” That’s a fantasy archetype, plain and simple. To say it’s not is intellectually dishonest, at best. Anyone with any bit of sense would recognize that Ben Kenobi fits far more into the mould of Gandalf and Merlin than Gary Mitchell.
Which is to say nothing of the other genres that Star Wars encompasses. To simplify it all as “space opera” is incredibly reductive. And then to say that because it is “space opera” makes it 100% sci-fi is incredibly debatable. If anything I’d say space opera is too diverse a style to shoehorn into merely a sub-genre of sci-fi. And I really don’t give a shit how Amazon classifies them. There is no remotely infallible way to label and categorize everything. Especially once you have things that straddle multiple definitions, it’s entirely unfair to pretend like they can fit into just one category and fit perfectly there.
Thanks! And I totally understand what you’re saying. I don’t think it could work for every edit, but I think it might work for some. I’ll have to try to put it together sometime and see if it could work at all.
And you’re right, I didn’t realize just how many scenes there were in this part of the movie until now. Honestly I think it is sort of a side effect of George waiting to tell the bulk of the story until the third movie in the trilogy.
It’s honestly the section where 80% of the film’s problems lie. The rest of the movie is pay off for stuff that should have but didn’t occur in that section, which you’re definitely right is partly because of the last minute cram nature of the trilogy.
Just pure lunacy. It is one thing to disagree about what the primary genre is, but to pretend like it is only one genre, with no elements of any other genre present is just ridiculous. Either you’re being willfully ignorant/obtuse, or you seriously need educate yourself better on Lucas’s influences. He wasn’t just taking from “space operas,” and I think you know it.
Ah, I see what you’re saying. That’s a good point. Though I don’t think it has to be before the Palpatine deleted scene, does it?
You don’t have to, but it might be odd for Anakin to see Padme openly confront the chancellor, then be surprised after to hear her air grievances with him in private (though of course what is discussed in the scenes aren’t exactly the same).
I think if you were to to try to put it in your ROTS, hypothetically, Dom, you could just swap the first deleted scene with third, the second with the first, and then put the second deleted scene inbetween “You’re sounding like a seperatist” and the Kashyyyk scene, with maybe some type of Coruscant establishing shot to create a buffer between those two Coruscant scenes to maybe imply time has passed and it’s the next day.
It’d be a little complicated with my edit, especially as I’ve excised the second scene entirely. The other thing I’m weary about is that section of the film feeling to jumpy from scene to scene with little connective tissue between them. This is a problem with the theatrical ROTS, and honestly most fan edits have only made this aspect worse (in my opinion, though of course I think they’ve on the whole improved the film). I’ve put a lot of thought into how I’ve structured that section, and while the way I have it now is by no means set in stone, I’d definitely have to do some real thinking on this possibility before chancing an implementation. I do really like where your head’s at on this idea, though.
Thanks! I don’t think it would have to be cut, necessarily. I just figured that that scene served a similar purpose, so it could be replaced if everything couldn’t fit.
I would think it would be a scene you’d want to make sure you don’t cut, as it feels to me like the only part of the theatrical film that links to those deleted scenes.
I’d think, with your idea, you’d want to place the Palpatine deleted scene after the “sounding like a separatist” scene. Anakin says that he’s not the one to talk to about this, so she goes a different way. Then later it might help your implication that the Jedi she’s referring to is Obi-Wan, if we know that she’s already been rebuffed by Anakin.
I agree, I was not sure how to phrase it. But there is no framing device in this film. I had thought you did see it, when I asked which of her films you hadn’t seen. Sorry for the confusion!
Oh there’s a bunch I haven’t seen, I just meant of the ones you mentioned in your post.
Two for the Road – This is the first mainstream American film I can think of to have a nonlinear plot. Fascinating in that regard.
What about Citizen Kane (1941)? Also, isn’t that a British film?
It’s directed by Stanley Donen and came through the studio system (Fox), so if it’s not American, it’s still Hollywood. And Citizen Kane was kind of linear, really, just going from flashback to flashback from person to person. Not to deny that film its due. Two for the Road is more avant garde in regards to structure, the timeline for the movie goes back and forth with little actual reason, with different periods merging together seemingly. I’d compare it to Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind, in that it feels like you’re exploring this couple’s memories.
I’m just going off Wikipedia and IMDB, which both say it’s from the UK. I’ve never seen it. I get what you mean about Kane, in that it’s technically framed as flashbacks (and newsreels and such), but I think it’s inaccurate to call that linear.