TV's Frink said:
Hal 9000 said:
How about this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGwwJEE7k48
:P
Someone hasn't watched TRM yet...
I've been suffering in silence. Can't understand how to make JDownloader work :/
Hilarious! For anyone else who hasn't seen it yet. Must be part of any ridiculous type edit in the future.
Bingowings said:
Is Felicia Day a national holiday yet?
I'm not familiar with her series, but looking at her picture made me think of Karen Gillan. Would definitely go for Karen Gillan.
doubleofive said:
Crap, would Nixon have signed the Civil Rights bills?
Research would need to be done but it is quite possible. The Republican Party was far more supportive of the Civil Rights bills than Democrats. President Eisenhower signed into law the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960.
For the 1964 bill, votes on the final version were
Nixon supported civil rights legislation while in the Senate and he helped with passage of the 1957 law. As president, he led efforts to desegregate schools - a big part of the 1964 Act. My guess is that he would have signed it. The one area where an issue might have arisen was Section II, but that's pure speculation on my part.
Edit:
Found an article that says:
"...former presidential candidate Richard Nixon also lobbied hard for the bill."
Need more information of course, but so far all information points to yes.
I enjoyed the script very much. At first I was confused about showing a Bothan but omitting mention of their name by Mothma and showing Sullust but omitting its name. I am guessing it was to substitute the visuals for dialogue which would be redundant as well as to depict the Emperor as less aware of what was going on? That definitely works well. But I do like Mothma's line ("Many Bothans died to bring us this information") and wonder if most of the line might be left in, why exclude their name?
SilverWook said:
I've seen "The Hobbit Defense" trotted out a couple times elsewhere to justify the SE changes George has made.
What was the early print run of The Hobbit in the 30's? More people likely saw Star Wars between 1977 and 1997 by a mile.
That seems likely. There is going to be less outrage if we never knew any better. That is the danger of the OT not being released - newer fans never knowing any better nor caring.
Additionally, reading is a far different experience from watching a movie. The latter fares far worse from additions, subtractions, and alterations. generalfrevious makes a good point. "Editions" are updated versions. Some try to maintain the original, others don't. Made me think of the 20th Anniversary edition (20th?! that can't be right...) of Zahn's Heir to the Empire. It's full of fun annotations. But the original text exists and can always be reprinted without losing its original form.
double post.
You are ruining our cultural heritage!
*cheers you on* I look forward to reading more. Good character descriptions, reminds me I need to think more about motivations.
I'm out of it for a little while, everyone gets delusions of grandeur.
My belated thoughts:
Good project! I've only read the first 5 pages of this, so sorry in advance if I repeat anything now or in the future or am otherwise clueless. What is the current working script? I see a link to a script in the early pages but do not know if it's been updated. If starting with Yoda scene, is there an intention to edit out Luke's glove?
darth_ender said:
6) I would have no problem if we never saw Max Rebo's band (sorry mrebo, if you read this thread). Even when I was a child and scared to death of Jabba, I thought the band looked very fake, like stuffed animals I'd keep in my bed.
How...dare you!
I am totally for Lapti Nek and Max Rebo. Lapti Nek is a sleezier song than suggested alternatives, as others have noted. And if there is a desire to edit out fake looking denizens of Jabba's Palace, I think Max, Droopy and Ms. Snootles would not be anywhere near the first to go and it would end up being a fairly empty place in the end.
There is the issue of music playing as if merely a soundtrack and not actually being generated inside the palace. We can assume otherwise (from the dancing and whatnot), but cinematically it is a bizarre omission to not show the source of the music. The band adds character. And they appear only briefly.
If the only question is the realism of these particular characters shown for a few seconds, I can understand why some would want to remove them...I guess. But to remove the color they provide to the scene (beyond the literal blue, mind you) and omit a part of what is happening - which is otherwise interesting to show, seems shortsighted. I know I'm late to the party, but it looked like there was some room for another point of view.
What is the state of affairs for the Ewok battle? Any plans to use footage from Battle of Endor? There isn't a lot that could be used there, some battle preparation, brief shot of an ewok with a blaster, etc.
XyZ said:
Bingowings said:
^WORST IDEA YET
Sorry, but I do not agree... Lucas already replaced the Ents with the Ewoks, Gandalf with Obi-wan, Aragorn with Han Solo, Frodo with Luke... Have you ever read the Lord Of The Rings, guys ?
... All the plan from the LOTR books is to be retrieved reworked and simplified in Star Wars. Joseph Campbell has certainly his part in that tho.
So, replacing the Ewoks with Ents would be some of the best ideas you could have, no ?
My favorite part was when they had to throw R2 into the core of the Death Star.
-_-
Okay, that's a fun worst edit idea.
ray_afraid said:
Another change I'd like to see (and much more do-able than my last suggestion) is to remove the shot of Vader stepping on Obi-Wans robe after he disappears. It makes it seem that Vader has no idea what just happened. If he really did "help the Empire hunt down and destroy the Jedi Knights" then not only would he know what happened, he probably expected it. Right?
It was obviously new to Vader. The whole disappearing act was a neat story device in the OT and clearly no thought was given to its role in an imaginary history. Then again, even in the PT, Lucas didn't have disappearing Jedi (it would have been an interesting scene if Anakin's saber had dispatched the younglings like popping bubbles).
Both Yoda and Obi Wan had made peace with death. It's plausible that Vader never encountered a Jedi who died in such a way - particularly the ones he pursued. Its easy to overthink all this, but I like that it confounded Vader. His knowledge of the Force probably gave him insight into what happened but still a plausible surprise.
SilverWook said:
Time travel was briefly mentioned onscreen though. From a certain point of view! ;)
C-3PO: Is there anything I can do?
Luke: Not unless you can alter time, speed up the harvest or teleport me off this rock.
*cries* teleportation?! D:
Bingowings said:
Look, I'm just hoping the Rebel fleet will hang around the Sol system and land invisible X-Wings full of Yoda's Jedi Younglings and have an exciting Halloween adventure with ET and Wolfman Jack.
Oh god. Now I'm laughing through the tears.
doubleofive said:
Yes, I'm imagining without JFK's Moon Speech to inspire America, it just kind of falls by the wayside. I'm thinking maybe NASA is still functional and has most of the technology to at least get an empty rocket into orbit, but never got the funding for actual astronauts. The public doesn't know this, and can assume we've been secretly studying all this for years, and just now releasing the information to the public. Claim some of the nuke tests were actually secret space tests, etc.xhonzi said:
Is there a link between Nixon winning in 1960 and not entering the space race?
Capricorn One, I'll have to rent that. Sounds good in general.
This sounds like a fun idea. And to have Nixon being the one to pursue a more dishonest course of 'getting to the moon' makes sense.
More context from NASA:
While Alan Shepard became the first American in space on May 5, he only flew on a short suborbital flight instead of orbiting the Earth, as Gagarin had done. In addition, the Bay of Pigs fiasco in mid-April put unquantifiable pressure on Kennedy. He wanted to announce a program that the U.S. had a strong chance at achieving before the Soviet Union. After consulting with Vice President Johnson, NASA Administrator James Webb, and other officials, he concluded that landing an American on the Moon would be a very challenging technological feat, but an area of space exploration in which the U.S. actually had a potential lead. Thus the cold war is the primary contextual lens through which many historians now view Kennedy's speech.
So even the absence of the Bay of Pigs could mean less political pressure and strategic importance for actually going to the moon.
walking_carpet said:
georgec said:
I just saw this supposed spoiler at AICN. The writer trusts the source, and AICN is usually on top of spy info.
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/53166
My interest level remains close to absolute zero.
im not so sure I believe it either...if only because the time period between ROTS and ANH was off limits for everything else because the show was going to take place aound this time.
another thing Im not sure I believe is the idea that 50 scripts have already been made. no one makes that many scripts before a show is cast, let alone green-lit. so much can change depending on the actors, growth of story lines, etc.
George Lucas is not a man who changes his mind . . .
On a serious note, I agree. And I think introducing time travel into main SW canon is a terrible idea.
Tobar said:
Huh, they actually responded. It starts at 1:41. I do regret leaving in that breakdown, I liked how the letter flowed better when I left it out when I posted it on their facebook page. I actually got a very positive response from others on their facebook page as well.
That was such a load of garbage they offered in response. Do these guys work for LFL? I've never listened to them and don't know their usual bent.
They say they didn't intend to lump haters into the same category as fan editors, even while endorsing the conflation of the two in the article. They even paraphrase the first sentence of the paragraph of the article that did paint fan editors as vitriolic haters.
They then go on to speak for Lucas (which is why I ask if they work for LFL), saying he is offended by fan edits and views them as an "abomination" and "bastardization of his work". They continue - after putting those words in GL's mouth that they are not taking any position on the rightness/wrongness of fan edits.
But GL never said any such things! GL has not pursued his legal rights against fan editors (despite being offended by bastardized abominations) and he has expressed support at least those fans who make their own films based in his universe. Correct me if I am wrong but isn't there a story that he has even seen Ady's Revisited and that he was not offended? In any event, GL was not saying all those things about fan edited films in the NYT article. GL was saying that if fans who hate him can rework his films, why can't they accept that he can also?
But of course that's not the issue and so these guys remain clueless. They put words into GL's mouth and pretend they hold no view whatsoever on fan edits. It was entirely disingenuous.
GL said:On the Internet, all those same guys that are complaining I made a change are completely changing the movie,” Lucas says, referring to fans who, like the dreaded studios, have done their own forcible re-edits. “I’m saying: ‘Fine. But my movie, with my name on it, that says I did it, needs to be the way I want it.
Lucas pretends not to understand what the issue is. nightstalkerpoet, you don't seem to appreciate the issue either. It's the same old debate but the facts are:
1. George Lucas altered a historic and beloved movie.
2. George Lucas refused to release the original version of it (which exacerbated the reaction to Fact 1).
3. After years of outcry, George Lucas released an original version in slapdash condition (which continued to build a narrative that Lucas didn't respect his fans that much).
4. George Lucas claimed he had destroyed the ability to release the original movies in better condition because of the work done on them for the SE.
And you want us to thank him?
The problem is not that some people made mean comments. Lots of fans have not made rude, hyperbolic comments. Plenty of fans were probably disillusioned and walked away. You're focusing on a relative minority of people and pretending they created Lucas's attitude toward preserving and releasing the original movies - rather than a reaction to his attitude, which they obviously are.
nightstalkerpoet, asking meekly does not change a person's mind who believes, as you assert, that the original movies were merely first drafts. Does Lucas not already know the original versions are part of cinematic history that should be preserved? Of course he does. Does Lucas not already know that the original versions are beloved by many? Of course he does. Every statement he has made on the matter pretends the opposite.
It's too bad that Mr. Lucas doesn't read the many many civil comments posted on this site. That he doesn't hear the basic frustration of his fans. You posted what you assert to be a "negative tone" in the OT petition:
culminated with the release of the 2006 limited edition DVDs, which contained substandard transfers from 1993
That is a statement of fact. The transfers were technically substandard. It's not a judgment about Lucas's character.
as the steward of one of the most recognizable and beloved film series of all time, you have a responsibility
That is an assertive statement and there is nothing negative about it. The hope, of course, is that Lucas agrees that as steward he has a responsibility (to his fans, society, history, what have you). If his feeling is simply, 'shut up, it's my movie, I don't care about cinematic history or you twits...' well it didn't matter how meekly it was worded, did it? You act like Lucas will burst into a rage unless we show complete subordinance. There is nothing wrong with being assertive.
The deliberate destruction of the original elements demonstrates such disrespect for film history that many of us find it hard to believe,
Lucas claims that the original elements were destroyed in making his digital alterations. Fans honestly feel this shows disrespect to cinematic history. It's not an endearing thing to say and of your three examples, this does fall on the negative side. Is this the sort of comment that perturbs Lucas and prevents him from wanting to satisfy those who love the work he created?
Are you claiming that Lucas is so proud and ill-tempered, that when fans present him with an assertive petition asking to buy his original creations, he ignores it and lashes out? I don't appreciate that implication. George Lucas did create Star Wars, after all.
I've been distracted by other things as of late and haven't gotten around to enjoying this site as much - let alone working on my rewrite. Awesome to read so many good ideas!
CWBorne, I love your characterization of Palpatine as an outsider businessman/philanthropist. Also your avoidance of over-explaining. What was brilliant about the OT was that it let the audience work things out for themselves.
McFlabbergasty, you're right that many of Lucas's depictions of political developments simply didn't make sense. It is important to avoid getting bogged down in political minutiae. The OT kept things simple. We knew there was a rebellion and an Empire and that was about it. Political developments are important but if they need lots of screen time or exposition to deal with them, it's too complicated for Star Wars. Most we got in the OT were a few comments in the conference room scene and in exchanges between Leia and Vader.
danaan said:
McFlabbergasty said:
Going by your interpretation, it seems Bail Organa inadvertently got the whole military-police-state ball rolling, but regretted that later seeing as he is Rebel-aligned in ANH. He was killed by the monster he helped create.
This adds an interesting layer of complexity to his character!
That's the idea! :)
It definitely is! One of the notions I'm more proud of is that Leia's later effort in combating the Empire is to redeem her (adoptive) father. This echos Luke's later effort with Vader and gives Leia more complex motivations.
Bail is full of good intentions and intelligence (as opposed to the unwitting, fooled, space-filling Jar Jar) but doesn't consider the possible unintended consequences. Bail wants to strengthen the central government to combat real threats. Palpatine exploits this reasonable desire to his own ends. Having a good and prominent senator like Bail central to the consolidation of power helps make it make more sense why so many go along.
I agree with ender that a fetus is a human life (it's scientific fact, but is worth noting when debating this topic). While a fetus is not a "person" in the legal or even colloquial sense, it will be one absent an intervening event (natural or otherwise).
By way of analogy, imagine a great uncle is in the hospital and declared brain dead. The family gathers by the bed to say goodbye. It is acceptable to pull the plug in such a situation because he is basically considered dead. But imagine if suddenly an eyelid fluttered or a finger moved, should we rush to pull the plug before he potentially and miraculously obtains consciousness? No. We are only pulling the plug because of a near certainty that won't happen. Contrast this with a fetus, which in all great likelihood, will attain consciousness. It does not suddenly become more moral depending on when the human life is killed - though it may seem more palatable.
Abortion is more complicated by the fact that it does have a huge impact on the mother's (woman's) life. And unlike the great uncle, a fetus was not previously conscious or considered a person. Depending on the stage, it might not be more than a bundle of non-specialized cells. There is a qualitative difference. Thus even many of the most pro-life of people will be able to make exceptions for rape and incest - because the fetal life is not exactly considered on par with that of the woman carrying it.
CP3, I always appreciate your forceful arguments. But that it can be easier to end a pregnancy than to raise a child doesn't add up to a whole lot in answering questions about morality or public policy. That there are bad parents or kids who in your judgment would be better off never having been born also doesn't answer any question about morality or public policy.
theprequelsrule, your argument that opposition to abortion is rooted in oppressing women doesn't pass the smell test. It is true that women were oppressed in many ways throughout history - even legally considered property of husbands - and I suppose even a woman's pregnancy could have been used to that end. But that doesn't mean the conception of fetal life as precious and human is rooted in oppression of woman.
You propose:
There is only one question that should be asked when it comes to abortion: should a woman have the final say over the fate of something inside her?
Should we ever ask what that "something" is? Reducing it to such vague and simplistic terms does not clarify the issue.
As conceded, it is not an easy issue. Morally, it is difficult to justify abortion - unless the woman herself will die (and even then we could have a prolonged philosophical debate). If we try to make it a more 'practical' matter in which two lives are at stake (like a hypothetical in which two live are at stake and only one can be saved) and try to balance a woman whose "health is severely at risk" with that of the fetus it's tricky to say when mental health is "severely at risk" for that woman who was raped (I'd hate to try to make that determination).
A fetus is not the same as a person, but it is more than a random clump of cells or a defective kidney. When a woman is raped, it is foolish and harmful to force a woman to abide the result of violence upon her. Allowing abortion in this case may be difficult to justify morally, but public policy should take account of the messy and inconvenient nature of reality. Note, this is different from saying that since reality is messy and inconvenient, we shouldn't make many rules at all.
There is no denying the general right of a person to exercise autonomy over their body. But like all rights - it is not absolute. Pregnancy is a unique condition involving another life. When a woman permits herself to become pregnant she takes on a responsibility. Men also take on a responsibility when they cause a woman to become pregnant (intentionally or not).
So where I end up, is believing that abortion should be discouraged and limited, but not outlawed. I can't formulate a complete and ideal set of laws on the topic, but this is where my views are anchored.
Ultimately, the debate over abortion is probably blown out of proportion. Polls show that 70-80% of people in the US want at least some restrictions on abortion. Yet the debate tends to turn into whether abortion should be entirely legal or entirely outlawed. And despite there being broad agreement that abortion should be restricted (for reasons other than oppressing women, presumably), the country is split about evenly as to whether they consider themselves "pro-choice" or "pro-life." In other words, there are probably people using either label who have practically the same moral and public policy views.
The answer to theprequelsrule's question above best indicates whether one identifies as pro-choice. Just as asking whether a fetus is a precious human life indicates whether one is pro-life. These questions do not dictate policy solutions to difficult problems. I can't turn a blind eye to the fact that a fetus is a human life.
P.S. If you love long-winded posts (and parantheticals) you will love my post.
Alexrd said:
Regarding digital Yoda standing out or looking cartoonish, I disagree.
It is slightly hyperbolic to call the CGI Yoda cartoonish. But looking at even the best pictures of CGI Yoda, it does look much more like a skillfully done painting than a photograph. He never actually looks real. The work is impressive and CGI is achieving greater realism. For the PT, it works, so far as it can.
nightstalkerpoet said:
I have a lot respect for the original films and film making techniques, but I do feel that it is perfectly acceptable to replace outdated effects...
...
For a lot of people, the replacement of the TPM puppet with the CGI version was a welcome change.
The new puppet was rather atrocious.
Without fear of being bashed (and please people, don't bash opinions on this) does anyone think that the Yoda in the OT could be replaced in a way that would improve the films? Keep in mind, this is assuming the CGI is done well and is well integrated not to stand out.
Without bashing your opinion, I think your premise is flawed. CGI characters stand out. Even in the PT, they didn't entirely mesh. Forcing it into a movie from 1980 isn't going to be any better.
There are different problems with CGI Yoda to be considered.
If the puppet Yoda walked in front of the couch right now, I would recognize it as a tangible moving object, even if he looks a bit puppety. If the second did, it would be more like a cartoon. Not even the cloth and hair pass for real. That he could bounce around like Roger Rabbit - while looking the part - would not constitute an improvement to me.
If your question is simply whether it is technically possible to insert a CGI rabbit Yoda (for good or ill) over the actual Yoda with a similar relative integration as the PT, I imagine it would be a painstaking task, but possible. I honestly do not see how forcing that kind of blatant CGI into ESB could improve it. Especially when you say the closeups on a puppet were very well done. So I agree with doubleofive ^
darth_ender said:
It was clearly a South African conspiracy that led to the death of Steve Irwin "The Crocodile Hunter. I mean, since the release of the Star Wars blu rays, I don't see how any other conclusion could be made!
That's nothing but circular reasoning! Obviously if we assume the release of the Star Wars [blue laser discs], Mr. Irwin's death must have been a conspiracy thus the release of Star Wars [blue laser discs]. Res ipsa loquitur incognito.
But c.f.: actually a good post about arguments
I stumbled upon this blog post, mostly about the Cracked article, but the blogger does add these thoughts:
Still, the plan to redo the original trilogy in 3D is out there, and now Lucas is claiming it wasn't his fault the latest trilogy sucked so bad, it was that technology hadn't caught up to his vision, and he was rushed so the Phantom Menace script wasn't ready yet, and on and on. In the Lucasfilms interview he blames "certain people" he won't name for having JarJar Binks in the film and so on. Basically despite having total control, no editor, and making the movie entirely on his own dime, Lucas is blaming other people for how his movies suck.
I don't see what he's referring to! Have you seen such statements?
I'm guessing that your decision was that the plaintiff wasn't that seriously injured or that whatever injuries he had were due to a pre-existing condition?
It's tough being in a room you don't want to be in, full of doubt about what you've seen and heard, and then try convince 5 people. Maybe your initial impression was simply wrong. In that case, you saved everyone trouble (yourself included) by seeing the flaws in your first conclusion. It sounds like you tried to do your best.
Almost deserves its own thread
The gingerbread man is brilliant.