TheBoost

I recently showed "Dante's Peak" to my class. When the lead scientist character is crushed horribly by a collapsing bridge, every single class laughed because the film used the Wilhelm Scream.

I loathe the Wilhelm Scream, but I'm a film geek. I cringe whenever I hear it, but I recognize that I've been trained to recognize the sound.

But these kids aren't film scholars, but laughed every time... because it's a funny sound, and inappropriate to the scene in almost every film it's used in.

Sound editors who use it are more concerned with being clever than serving the film (with the exception of films like "Hot Shots").

I have no point, except I think it stinks. 

TV's Frink said:

 

This is probably the route I'll take, although the concern is that the PT is so "pretty" and the OT so "ugly" that they'll hate the OT even if they see it first - unless they avoid the PT for at least a few years.

 Although at a certain young age the PT might look like a cartoon for babies, and the OT will look edgy and grown up. I went through that stage around 8.

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

Keeping your kid from watching the PT?  That's a little over the top.  This is a different generation, and they have every right to enjoy things that we don't enjoy.  In fact, it doesn't bother me at all if the younger generation doesn't like the original SW and prefers the PT.  They also don't like the Beatles, Miles Davis, and a host of other things that earlier generations consider great.  However, they should learn to respect that which came before, because the things they love will become passe too.

 I see your point, but 50 Cent's new album doesn't affect how we view "Revolver" or "Sgt. Peppers." The PT actively recontextualizes how the OT is viewed.

That being said, my boy (currently 20 months) is going to grow up with the OT and TPM. He can experience the rest of the PT when he's old enough to watch them at a friends house.

Warbler ---> Warbird

Just sounds cooler.

Kenobius Prime said:

No, I am not responsible for the kenkraly types.

Not defending kenkraly, as the dude means less than nothing to me, but how did he become the posterboy for annoying posters? Because he misspells things and thinks Lucas is a lair but will release the OOT? Have I missed something?

I mean, aren't there dudes who are WAY more obnoxious than that?

canofhumdingers said:

I guess all that's to say that I think there are a lot of people who don't currently own ANY verion of Star Wars, but would be prompted to buy it if they saw a big ad campaign for the fully restored originals on bluray.

Just imagine the commercials...

(James Earl Jones' voice) "For the first time ever... the original theatrical release of the movies that changes cinema forever, restored to brilliant Ultra-def GreenRay quality with Dolby 12.0 sound!" (cuz it'll be the future)

twooffour said:

TheBoost said:

I still stand you have to be "retarded" not to "understand" the plot of this film on the first "viewing".

He understood and mentioned what there was, and explained how the lack of any additional information made a deeper understanding IMPOSSIBLE.

I honestly don't know what kind of 'deeper' meaning you're looking for.

Should Nute Gunray have done a PowerPoint to explain to the audience how taxes effect his business? Should the Queen have explained to her councellors why a blockade was bad for them? Should Qui-Gon have worn a t-shirt that read "Protaganist?" Should the protocol droid have said, "I'm mostly sure they're Jedi because they looked and acted like Jedi and had lightsabers and Jedi-brand boots"? Would these things have helped you reach that deeper understanding you so crave?

twooffour said:

TheBoost said:

I can't believe that this tool and Confused Mathew are actually not clear about the plot of this flick. My 8 year old nephew understood it just fine. Are there some holes, yes. Are there points that can be nitpicked, yes. But to act as if you plain dont understand the plot is ridiculous.

No, there is nothing to "understand" about this plot. RLM is completely right. The "relevant" plot is that Palpatine uses the Trade guys to advance himself politically, and that apparently this Naboo crisis somehow grows into the Separatist crisis (with no more information given other than Sidious is the chessmaster behind both, and the Trade guys are on board again).

Plinkett got that, and mentioned it repeatedly in his review. The complaint was that this "irrelevant" scheme was THE ENTIRE MOVIE, and nothing was told or shown about the Traders' motivations. And the fact that this movie was basically necessary because Palpatine happened to be a Senator on Naboo, pretty seals the deal on the plot of TPM being a complete total turd.

I wonder what your "8 year old nephew" "understood" about a whole bunch of superfluous nothing.

I still stand you have to be "retarded" not to "understand" the plot of this film on the first "viewing".

Lucas dies. World mourns. Consumer and liscensee confidence in the "SW" brand drops.

The OOT is released in a pristine restored BluRay condition. Rereleased to theaters. Sells millions, revitalizing company.

You are given control.

You get to pick ten items of art... film/music/books that all people in the English speaking world are required to view/read/listen.

You get to pick the media. You're like Oprah, only not evil. Well, maybe a little. What do you pick?

Wasn't one of Lucas's daughters fighting in MMA? I want her to take over the company.

Moth3r said:

Indeed good news, assuming:

1) Fox/Lucasfilm do indeed cooperate

2) Someone at the Registry actually checks to ensure they haven't tried to sneak in an SE print...

 This is a real test. It's one thing to say "to hell with you" to your fans, but is Lucas so bold as to say to hell with the Library of Congress!!

Isn't there a little bit of JediTray in all of us?

Gaffer Tape said:

Stop listening to reactionary parents.  Stop being so easily cowed by political correctness.  Guess what?  The role of schools is to EDUCATE, not WHITEWASH so-called objectionable content. 

You do realize the public school are run by elected officials who are elected by the reactionary parents because they do these type of things?

I'm not disagreeing with you, but the problem is fundamental to the system.

Gaffer Tape said:

So you're arguing that removing the offensive words are more conducive to thinking than keeping them?  I can't even begin to wrap my head around that...

I said nothing even resembling that.  Just pointing out that there is nothing "Orwellian" about any of this.

I also stand that the words "politically correct" have no place in any reasonable discourse. They're the embodiment of 'doubleplusgood duckspeak.' It's a meaningless reactionary term that ends all thought and discussion.

Reading up on whats on the webs about this over lunch, I am appalled at the racism I'm seeing.

"Grow Up Black America!" was on comment. There's an overwheliming view that this was done by a black person for other "whiny blacks" (also a comment).

"The Koran offends me. When can I burn it?" asked another genius.

Also I see the word "Orwellian" a lot. Which is funny because the purpose of "New Speak" in 1984 wasn't to avoid offending people. The purpose of NewSpeak was to be able to talk without thinking (duckspeak).

When faced with an issue like this, the people who respond with "Orwellian" or my favorite "PC run amok!" are the ones being Orwellian.

TV's Frink said:

As this was done to help get the book into schools it wouldn't otherwise get into, and not to replace the original, I have no problem with it.

 I have a deep problem with the school in the first place. I wish this book didn't serve a purpose. I don't like it one bit, but I too can see the purpose.

Warbler said:

TheBoost said:

Neither are generally "acceptable" in polite discourse, but to say one isn't clearly worse than the other is silly. Does someone really need to "decide?"

apparently you are doing so with the n-word and cracker.   Also I didn't say one wasn't worse than the other, I said there was double standard.

 A 'double standard' implies two things that are the same are treated differently.

That the N-word and Cracker are both rude terms for race is true, but to imply they are in any way the same is just monumentally ignorant.

The N-word and 'colored person' are both generally unacceptable terms in mannered conversation. They both refer to black people but the fact one is so clearly worse than the other is not a double standard. It's an overwhelming fact.

http://blog.al.com/scenesource/2011/01/auburn-montgomery_professor_al.html

Rare article that actually does the bizzare action of talking to the editor and publisher about what they did!

http://www.newsouthbooks.com/twain/introduction-alan-gribben-mark-twain-tom-sawyer-huckleberry-finn-newsouth-books.html

Actual Intro from the book.

canofhumdingers said:

I haven't read this entire thread word for word but this news is ridiculous.  Anyone who wishes to censor Huck Finn clearly hasn't the slightest grasp of what the book is about.  The whole POINT was to show how horrid and fallible racism is... 

Try reading anything at all about it, and you'll see that what you're saying is far from the editor and the publisher's mind. The introduction to the book is available online, as are numerous quotes from the editor.

Reading before opinions is an awesome way to do things.

TheBoost said:

 Does the word 'cracker' carry with it the history of centuries of violence, oppression, slavery, and murder?

Is it a double standard, or are the words just not equal in meaning?

They not be equal in meaning, but they are both still racial slurs.   Should some racial slurs be acceptable and other not?   Which are and which aren't?  How do we decide?

Neither are generally "acceptable" in polite discourse, but to say one isn't clearly worse than the other is silly. Does someone really need to "decide?"

 *ss and c*nt are both rude terms for body parts, but I'll use only one of them in front of my mother.

vaderios said:

Thats why im keep saying the differences about the ANH vader and the ESB Vader. Total different characters.

 Totally different?

I always just assumed that he got promoted. With his new position, no one could tell him who he could and couldn't choke.

Warbler said:

  In order to be polite in this post, I said n-word instead of the full word, but didn't have to abbreviate the word cracker.    

 Does the word 'cracker' carry with it the history of centuries of violence, oppression, slavery, and murder?

Is it a double standard, or are the words just not equal in meaning?

Warbler said:

TheBoost said:

But in all honesty, is it better to get a classroom of teenagers to confront these issues in a book that is 'censored,' or to deny them the work totally?

what is better is to protest the schools that would deny the students the original work or would teach an altered version and try to get their heads out of the sand(and for teachers to refuse to cooperate with such schools), instead of caving to their demands.  

The demands are from people, usually parents, usually middle-class, usually white. (I'd be interested in any black leaders who want to censor to the language in "Huck Finn"). Schools don't make demands. Schools follow policy.

Principals and teachers are civil servants, not policy makers. Something like "Huck Finn" being on a banned book list is usually up to the elected school board. I think it would be very sad for a teacher to lose their job because they think "Huck Finn" is without worth without the N-word.

I'd love to see a School Board nominee run on the platform "I'll put more racial slurs into your child's education!"

If you want to eliminate banned book lists, get in line. While you're trying to change the fundamentally irrational, reactionairy, and painfully conservative underpinings of American public education, generations of students will be denied a chance to be taught "Huck Finn."

 

freeset 3 hours ago in reply to Michealfelps:

they relese it in bluray now??? how did they make it full hd when the movie was shot on film cameras 30 years ago with no digital image processing and all the stuff???? it is a bullshit big like the death star before its explosion into tiny pieces of glittery magic. no movie before 2000 can be properly converted into full hd, i said properly, if the source is not high definition enough then good luck, you cant phisically convert it. the dvd is the MAX they can get out of starwars and they use noise cancelation algorithms to create a fine image, now they will CREATE MORE PIXELS?????? it smell like a marketing move.

 

 What?

Really, film enthusiasts are starting to sound like 9/11 Truthers, or Da Vinci Code believers.