You know, when replying to anyway meaningless and non-related posts, I could use nothing but ironic or sarcastic humor. However, since not everyone can understand irony or sarcasm nor any kind of humor (as it turned out obviously)... what else can I say? I'm better off. Don't cry for me :-D
DuracellEnergizer said:
Mavericks said:
Bingowings said:
^As you can probably imagine I'm not convinced but I'm happy you are :-D
non-believers believe several faiths and look from as may POVs as it's possible.
This post seems to apply more to you than to Bingo right now, y'know.
Sure. Did I say something different?
I guess those pesky Atheists..
I'm a gnostic, BTW ))
imperialscum said:
The great Emperor being thrown down the shaft of unfinished death star at the ass-end of galaxy. No usual "epic final battle in the centre of everything" bullshit.
Exactly!
Even the death of Boba Fett is great. It reminds me of Old West gunfighter legend Wild Bill being shot in the back by a drunk while plying cards. Crude, ironic and natural.
It's very possible they indeed drew inspiration from Old School westerns stylistics.
Bingowings said:
^As you can probably imagine I'm not convinced but I'm happy you are :-D
Imperialscum, never try to convince believers: believers are gonna believe one faith, non-believers believe several faiths and look from as may POVs as it's possible.
BTW, considering Nellith I always (since I became aware of this unrealized arc) felt that had George gone with this version it would've been boring to watch 3 movies Luke searching for his sister, WHILE CONFRONTING THE EMPEROR ONLY IN EPISODE 9 and having the Grand Spacebattle ALSO ONLY IN THE LAST INSTALLMENT. Though all this may sound like a futile theorizing, if you have rich imagination, writing and directing skills, you can extract everything possible from potential possibilities, treasured in a story, after all; so every way of interpreting and realizing is appropriate - with or without Nellith. It's just the fanboys that always act like kids, playing more monarchistic behavior than the monarch himself does :-)
Fang Zei said:
Was the original plan (circa 1980) to just keep going and make 6, 7, 8, 9, etc, or was George already planning on doing the PT before the ST?
As far as I'm aware the original plan of Lucas was 12 episodes with 9 episodes following each other in a chronological order plus 3 "tangential" ones. At some moment which I can't tell precisely, he reduced his vision to 3 trilogies and that was the number that circulated in his, various cast and crew members interviews all the time through making OT and even AFTER. The plans to film ST and PT were mentioned by several independent sources, for example Marquand in his ROTJ interview right after the release was outspeaking in the sense that the outline of PT storyline had been worked out, while regarding ST Lucas mentioned some sketch ideas on a more raw level.Things began to change when he sanctioned T.Zahn Thrawn Trilogy and several other authors thus giving them the rights to fill the void in the ST timeline. In '90 he somehow talked on the subject less frequently till changing the tune that he never intended to shoot ST, and all the talks were nothing but misinterpretations by the media. Go figure.
Does anybody know if Han, Leia and Luke will be in Ep8&9?
Well, the fact that you could create such thread for ANH and ESB that have plenty logical flaws, errors and "bad decisions" . Heck, that isn't the reason I love OT :)) SW is fairy tail, not a war/life drama where you'd expect logically smooth storytelling and too much logic would contradict the purity of fairy tail, myth, folklore genre (that SW derives from).
DuracellEnergizer said:
A Lucas written-and-directed ST would have probably sucked almost as much as the PT.
That's why I added "guest-directing" and "guest-writing" (read more closely) from a third director/writer :)
But I talked not about alternative story (original story with three additional episodes about Luke carrying on the quest of his twin-sister Nellith), but the story as it had crystallized by the time of finishing episode 6. To my mind it would be cool to watch our heroes after the death of the Emperor as the struggle to rebuilt the New Republic (but without Thrawn crap).
It never occurred to me till I came across images of Harrison and Carrie of the days how awesome it would be if Lucas decided to make ST much earlier than PT, say, in the early to mid-90s (ST taking place 10 yy after ROTJ). Although, the following sounds as pure utopia, nevertheless, if we ignore technology (raw imperfect CGI) and money factors and think idealistically in terms of pure art, then he could just film live scenes with actors, then wait till 2000's (up to the time of Avatar) and add CGI graphic and action where needed. Of course the script and directing should match the path he chose doing Episodes5&6 (guest-directing and guest-writing). Imagine, what stunning result potentially could be born. Although I disagree with the viewpoint that there wasn't sense in doing PT, but I'd rather watch the continuation of adventures of the beloved and familiar heroes instead of new unemotional set of faces that could't evoke a sympathy on my part anyway. What do you of ST coming up in 1995 instead of 2015?
RicOlie_2 said:
I think Han believed in the Force by then. He knew what a Jedi Knight was and believed that Luke was one when Chewie told him.
Yes, he believed by then. He didn't until he saw Luke in action him liberating Han and in deleted Sandstorm scene he actually praised his efforts, so we could assume he acknowledged his powers.
DominicCobb said:
Why aren't people mad that Denis Lawson isn't on the cast list?
Because Lando played way more important part than Wedge. He was significant plot twist in ESB when he betrayed Han and later helped his friends to escape, saved Han in ROTJ and led the Rebel fighters attack on DS 2. Would be nice to see Wedge as high rank commander of the New Republic Forces, though.
DominicCobb said:
As for Billy Dee, I'm kind of glad, honestly that he's not in it. That would turn this movie into a reunion show. Those six are really all we need.
Why if there're six original cast members there can't be a place for seven? If one says "A", then it would look logical to have him saying "B", wouldn't it?
But no Billy Dee!!! Now that's frustrating :(
THANKS! Worked. But a small problem still remains: the subs aren't displayed properly, torn in two with the ending of the sentence on the right and the beginning on the left. How to merge them in a right order?
Oh, Anchorhead ... you should learn to understand irony on more subtle level and also not to extract certain quotes out of context. Other than that thank you for the engaging "debate class" ))
Cheers! )
Hi all out there,
I have a 3D HSBS .mkv file. What should I do to watch it:
1. on my computer? (usually I use VLC for .mkv and for some mp4 and iTunes for mp4)
2. on my TV (Sony Bravia Triluminos KDL W9 series) plugged in my computer.
3. what type of 3D glasses do I need to watch it on a computer - active or passive? I have active ones that came with the TV
Appreciate your help
Thanks
OK, thank you.
I meant seriously.
Please, could you tell me how to watch a movie that is in .mkv 3D HSBS format? It's in my computer. When I start to play it I see two pictures side by side and it's just it. Have no idea how to fix this. Any ideas? Thanks.
Anchorhead said:
Mavericks said:
Anchorhead, "in a nutshell" doesn't equivalent to "accurate", "comprehensive".
It certainly does. Marquand made a handful of films, only one of which was at Pinewood. On that film, he was nothing more than a surrogate for Lucas. The film doesn't have Marquand's touch, it has Lucas'. Which is the very reason it fits with the PT instead of the OT. Lucas was in charge. It reeks of Lucas and his complete disconnect with the audience, the characters, and the story itself.
Very well. Now, this type of utterance sums up the whole anti-ROTJ position. Here're several major aspects considering the people who subscribe to this point of view:
1. Unfortunately, these people often don't realize that this is just the point of view, i.e., their own personal preferences. This is perfectly unwelcomed and regrettable. If you dislike ROTJ, I adore you, but please don't give it the flesh of one more "accepted truth", there're too many of them these days, agree?
2. In the science of historiography when working with eye witnesses' accounts there's a special term "lies as an eyewitness": it means that a person telling about an event after many years of its original occurrence, in fact, says not what he saw actually, but "from the certain point of view", affected by an intensive ideological freak-out in the following period of time. So's the human psychology. An every single human subconsciously links to mob thinking, seeks to be a sheepl and the degree to which his thinking is affected by his nature depends on his developed sense of independent worldview, maturity of his inner culture. Now, a rhetoric question, how big is a part of people that claim disliking ROTJ, dislikes it actually, or liked it prior to learning "the opinion of majority" and how big is a part of people who have disliked it always actually? Difficult to say, isn't it? There weren't any study on that and it would be a very hard one to conduct, I guess.
3. This point of view tends to oversimplify actual course of events: the facts that don't fit it are being ignored, the ones that seem to support it are being extruded. "Making of Jedi" provides enough food for thoughts. The undeniable fact is that indeed Lucas was involved more that in a previous film. Also the undeniable is that we feel Lucas approach here more distinctly. I don't want to repeat myself on what I wrote earlier on Marquand's role in my posts above, please, if you're interested in a constructive debate, read it again, since what could be written here has already being addressed there. The opinions of Richard on the part of the cast and crew differed from negative ones to positive. What were the reasons behind that is another separate and interesting subject of study, but, sadly, it's untouched in Rinzler's book. He failed to deliver exhaustive account of the director's work on set and that's why I'm not completely satisfied with it. For his previous one he used Arnold that I feel covered Kersh's methods more carefully, more in depth. I didn't read Preecher, but since Rinzler used his account too, I can judge that Preecher did the job slightly worse than Arnold. And here's the main point: when speaking of Kersh, in spite of many other scenes that found its depiction in Rinzler's book, the majority of praises from the journalists and "fans" comes from reading the transcript of his directing the Carbon Freeze scene that, covering his actions step by step, became available by a twist of fortune. It's a pity that nobody managed to attach wireless mic to Marquand's throat hence is insufficient amount of info to draw a picture of him on the set that, paradoxically, the book containing near 800 pages of printed and footage material wasn't able to put right.
But even with this flaws the book doesn't lead to a categoric conclusion that Marquand was Lucas' "surrogate". The fact that his taste was closer to Lucas' than Kershner's which he expressed himself in an interview (that is, he liked the original SW movie more that Empire) has raised the misconception among admirers of Empire and Kershner's "style" that Marquand was merely "a puppet of Lucas". These people often forget that in planning overall structure of the tonal deal of the whole trilogy the persons who called all the shots were Lucas and Kasdan. It was Kasdan who determined the mood both of Empire and "Jedi" prior to hiring Kershner and Marquand, that both were hands of Lucas and the real difference (of course, apart from their personal and professional philosophy difference) was that Kershner wasn't limited by Lucas' requirements of the budget and timeline, while Marquand was and that Kershner asked for complete independence while Marquand layed the assistance for the part of Lucas down as a condition . And somehow I doubt that, contrary to some fanboys' cries, he felt being "a puppet".
Additionally, just to mention: the pure professional blamestorming of this and any other movie could be carried on on a propriate level by other professionals - writers and filmmakers. If it has its structural flaws then they're not what angry fans point out to and an average person can't even it explain in the way other than "I dislike this, I like that". So do I.
4. The degree to which one is adhered to a theory of "Marquand as a puppet of evil Lucas" is determined by whether one likes or not ROTJ, not by a desire to learn the facts, be it hidden or open for public.
To be honest I don't care that much about what used to happen behind the scenes. I even think that this knowledge kills the initial freshness of watching experience and distorts in some ways an average viewer's perception. I myself went through waving of my sympathies towards the whole trilogy and now I just watch it as naturally as I can, considering me becoming a tough cynic in the course of the years. I love A new Hope. I love Empire. I love Jedi. That's why I'm not "a fan" of Jedi. I think there're many of us who love all 3. Hell, that's why the persons who created this site called it Original Trilogy, not Duology.
5. Now here we have two statements: A It reeks of Lucas and his complete disconnect with the audience, the characters, and the story itself. and B I get it, you're a fan of Return.
If it "reeks" complete disconnect then how did I manage to became "a fan of Jedi"? Statement A contradicts statement B in your logic. Or you will claim that I'm "a wrong fan"? Or that it's just me? Both would be wrong I'm sure and inappropriate as obviously there're many "Jedi fans" out there. And if, according to you, "PT fits OT" which sounds completely nerdish, then how it became that I didn't notice that? I clearly feel the distinction. Again would you risk to claim that I'm alone? I think, you wouldn't. That's why the kind of assumptions you're using rests on a shaky ground.
I can't image there is a single person who follows films, collects films, loves films, makes films, or works in the film industry who - when they hear Pinewood Studios - doesn't automatically think of James Bond.
Well, I don't know what a person you talking about but as for me I don't find the whole Bond franchise so entertaining to care about it. Is it a public sin? ) Besides, I'm not the part of anglosphere culturally and hmm geographically so I'm not affected by knowledge of who of its creative minds lives/creatively acts where. Basically I dig info on persons which were/are involved in projects I like. As the James Bond doesn't belong to my field of cinematic interest I don't feel urgent need to learn smith more. But, nevertheless, aside from my personal preferences I acknowledge an importance of certain people of the industry objectively, so definitely I'm not against paying homage to some of them.
Aside from that, the Alien films, Superman films, Batman films (Burton and Nolan), Bourne, Harry Potter, Doctor Who, and way too many more to name.
Very good.
I get it, you're a fan of Return.
No, you're wrong. As I've made it clear in the other thread on ROTJ I'm "a fan" of the entire Original Trilogy. I can't divide it on a basis of what's "worst" and what's "best. Moreover, before I went to the vast expanses of Internet I even didn't know that Empire was "considered the best by..." and that ROTJ "sucks". I built my appraisal not on fighting opinions but on my own watching experience isolated from outer influences. There're two aspects - subjective and objective: regarding the former I love SW, regarding the latter I'm able to apply my critical scrutiny and with the wisdom of hindsight find flaws in all 3 parts. Even in Empire I could name some scenes that in my opinion could be executed in a more subtle way, but overall I'm able to move past these misgivings and, overcoming my adult skepticism enjoy all 3. I don't think I'm alone.
And the other thing, why're you trying to attach labels to other persons right from the start? I may be "a fan" of nothing, just happened to express my view.
there should be a Gerald Scarfe stage before there is a Marquand stage.
Absolutely. And if it were "along with" or "after" would it cause a cognitive dissonance?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYFVk-G_Ugk
Eeverything better than^ is already a huge relief ))))))))
TV's Frink said:
Mavericks said:
attempts to close down the debate
There're NO such attempts.
Mavericks said:
1. This thread was created merely to pay homage to the director of ROTJ by giving a link to the petition, not to discuss what you personally think or not of him. There have to be lots of threads dedicated to this subject you may want to visit instead.
???
Never mind. It was misunderstanding for my part. The very 1st sentence of my 2nd post explains it, and anyway I never meant to "close down the debate", of course it's welcomed.
Bingowings said:
You are making my case for me you do realise this?
I'm NOT making any case for anyone. I present my opinion in a way I see good. The most explicit one. That's it. How you interpret it is solely your problem.
attempts to close down the debate
There're NO such attempts.
Using the reasoning you deploy you must recognise that not everyone sees ROTJ or its director the same way you do so it makes sense that not everyone is going to see the merit in signing the petition.
I have nothing against^ but do you realize that the body of your comments like that^ adds nothing substantial? Do you realize that posting such comments you're distracting the discussion, while unwittingly suggesting that the fashion in which you express your disagreement leads to suppression of an opinion you disagree with?
For my part all I have to say is that I tried to reply with arguments that rely on verified sources and facts, not on hearsay. I made it clear from the very beginning that I recognize very well what "not everyone" feels. I think I made the main message of me reasoning abundantly clear: stiffed cliches and "it's well known/considered by the majority" has nothing in common with reality that's always is much more complicated. I also made it clear that I'm not trying to "close down the debate". He, who has ears to hear, let him hear.
Have a nice day and debate! )))
Bingowings said:
Your subjective opinion on Morrison's Star Wars significance has the same in utility as my subjective opinion on Marquand's Star Wars significance.
Exactly. Did I say something that would imply opposite? To each his own.
Sure quality over quantity any day but as much as I like Star Wars is any Marquand film up there with the Shirley's greatest hits?
Is any Marquand film as good as Morrison's performance in Once Were Warriors?
Short answer: it's a matter of taste.
Longer answer: once again, your thinking style derives from supposition that there some established, sacrosanct criteria exists, sort of paper patterns given by the Heaven once and for all. It's illusion. It's all up to your likes and dislikes: I watched Once We Were Warriors but would never watch it again. I found it unimpressive. But that doesn't mean it's bad, maybe it's quite contrary. Again, how many people out there who are able to recognize: "I don't like it, but it's good"? Rather than that you're going to hear "I don't like it and hence it's bad".
Good and bad is all subjective. Especially in art which is a product of personal psycho-emotional (= subjective) experience. It's all not about some ephemeral "generally" accepted rules of beauty, it's about how every single "recipient" reacts to this product. I don't know even who that Shirley is, but I've watched many other movies for sure and my inner aesthetical sense of what is "good" and "bad" for me personally has fleshed out my taste and selected what types of movies (music, painting, literature) I prefer. If to return to Marquand then my inner aesthetical sense gave thumb up. In the case of Once We Were Warriors, Space Odissey 2001 , it gave thumb down. Quit simple if you reject figmental "standards". I watch movie=>I like it=>good movie.
NeverarGreat said:
Children of the Jedi
...
Put down your flamethrowers and let me clarify:
Mara Jade is uninteresting to me, and uninteresting as Luke's romantic interest. Callista makes a far better fit in my opinion
Callista?? Callista Flockhart????