xhonzi

Did anyone get a Kinect(Natal)?

I hear they can't be found on store shelves, but I don't know of anyone personally that has one.

I have a bud who works for MS who might be able to get one for me cheap.  But probably not until there's stock.

A belated Happy Guy Fawkes 2010!

I was on holiday at home with my kids (the wife's birthday is on the 4th and she went out to lunch with her sister) and didn't come to the forums.

Hope you burned some Catholics!

bkev said:

none said:

Harold and Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay.

^This. I was surprised CC kept in the KKK scene. Also, I love Neil Patrick Harris.

You mean you're a...

Mine is trying to sell me Gaffer's Tape.

The tape or the girl? I wonder.

Anchorhead changed the thread title to:

RE: Article on prequel films. Note: Does not pertain to Godfather II, which isn't a prequel - it's a sequel with extended flashback sequences.

But.. Godfather II is specifically mentioned in the article to which you linked.

I consider it on a tact that is too far removed from where we eventually go in ESB to try to fit it into my understanding of 'canon'.  I have fond memories of reading it because I was so hungry for more SW, and at the time it was basically it.

we first hear the term "Sith Lord" in SW:AOLS, but we don't hear it in the films until TPM...

*Whew*  You threw me for a loop there with AOLS (Adventures of Luke Skywalker, right?).

Is 'Palpatine' even in RotJ?  If not, then like the term Dark Lord of the Sith, it was in the books and on trading cards for decades before it appeared in film.  Kind of a curiosity.

#1. I can plainly see the glass in the cobra/Indy scene on VHS on a modest TV.  If you know what you're looking for, you can see it.

#2. Was anything changed in Temple of Doom or Last Crusade?

Always awesome.

Ric:

Oh yeah?  How many Handsome Internet Polls have you won?

Me: 1.  Just the Handsome Naboobian Thrown one.

PCSitCH:

And for the record, Panaka is far more cute than Ric.

Panaka:
Oh, Panaka like you already!  Panaka like you almost as much as he love delicious panakacakes. 

He's just lucky I didn't put him on ignore.

Which reminds me... time to take C3PX off of ignore.  What's he been up to in the past 2 years, anyways?

Moo moo moo!

TheoOdo:

Here are my general comments.  I will try to give them with the same... softness... that I would like to receive.  :)

1. I too would like to get R2 and 3PO in the story as it's one of my oldest memories of what the prequels would be.  "The droids will be the only characters in all 9 films" or some such.  However, it's a rather sticky wicket since Obi-Wan shouldn't be the owner of the droids, and it seems really bad to have Darth Vader be their previous owner.  So... who does that leave?  I guess they can belong to Bail?  Not sure, but I wouldn't go with Anakin.

2. It's nice to validate the Owen stuff, but I think it does more harm than good to "pop by Tatooine" just to keep up continuity.  I think the PT should have no Tatooine in them, and generally as little revisiting here-to-fore seen planets as possible.  I think the Owen stuff is ultimately unnecessary, and is forcing your story places it shouldn't go.

3. I really like the "Star Defender" name.  How did you come up with it?

4. Similar to #2, I think you want to avoid Coruscant/Had Abaddon.  The galaxy is a big place.  Seeing "the centre" too much makes it feel much smaller.  There is already way too much "galactic shrinkage" in Star Wars.  My advice- never show the centre.

5. Generally- don't worry so much about explaining stuff.  Yeah, Anakin should get a little pep talk about the force at some point in time.  It should be introudced to the audience as if they don't know what it is.  But you can certainly take it too far.  Remember the failure of midichlorians.

More as I remember the thoughts I had while reading over it.

You mentioned Normon Osborn... nvm.

Oh yeah... the Normons... I've heard of them.

You are generally an absolutist? :p

It's harder than it looks.

From time to time.

Oh really?  (<-That's an honest "Oh really" not a sarcastic one.)

I didn't see it in theatres, but we had a VHS player and it seems that it was one of the only movies that there was to watch... so we rented it when it first came out on tape. 

It came out late '85 or early '86, I think.  Part 2 wasn't out until 1989.  Are you sure that the sequel was "underway" that early?

I actually read the article in the OP just now.  That is probably the most professionally written thing I've read on cracked.  EVER.  Very solid arguments, very few fart jokes.

I love Cracked.  But that was just a little refreshing.

I won't be happy with some crap CG sound effect.  I want the real thing, or I'm starting a petition website with a forum 2... 3... EIGHT times as good as this one!

I always thought "To be continued!" was actually a joke.  They really wanted to say, along the lines of what you are saying- "The story goes on!"  Not necessarily that they were actually going to make more movies.

But I think the joke literally is "We're going to make more movies!  *snark*!"  Even though, as far as I understand it, no one actually thought there would be more movies.

Wow, am I making any sense?

Don't get me wrong- I agree with you.  It puts the words up there: There will be sequels!

But it doesn't do anything storyline wise to set them up.

AotC: It's the digital theatrical release, right?

I mean, I don't actually believe the movie exists at all, but if it did, I think that one is pretty close.

And RotS?  If it existed as a theatrical version and a DVD... are there differences?

Sluggo said:

I think you have Mr. Osborn mixed up with some obscure Christian sect.

???

What if the Hoth invasion was told from General Veers perspective? 

I've had this thought as well.  Generally, I'm a moral absolutist (this is right, that is wrong) and don't have a lot of patience for "perspective".  Oh, this child molester is actually not doing anything wrong, from his perspective, etc.

But then again, I do believe that most people who commit evil don't see it that way.  Not that it makes it right, or neutral, but that they have rationalized away the reality that what they're doing is wrong so they can go ahead and do it anyways.

If one doctor says, "Yes, you can eat 10 lbs of bacon for breakfast and lose weight.  It's healthy!" and 9 doctors say to that doctor, "What are you a doctor of, exactly?"... A lot of people will listen to the 1 doctor because they can convince themselves that a 10lb bacon breakfast is not only delicious! but also good for them.

So, I think you could show the invasion from Veers perspective.  However, I don't think the morality of the situation is actualy relative.  You might make him the 'protagonist'... but you won't make him a 'good guy'.

If that's right, I don't mind being wrong.

Back to BTTF, for a moment.

It's funny.  BTTF2 & 3 sure form a matched set, somewhat like ESB and RotJ or Matrix 2&3, PotC 2&3etc...  But I think BTTF 1 fits in less with its sequels to form a "Trilogy" (capital 'T') than Star Wars or the others.

Star Wars sets up the Empire, that the rest of the trilogy must deal with.
Matrix sets up the... Matrix, that the rest of the trilogy must deal with.
Chronicles of Riddick sets up several things that the rest of its....  *boo hoo*... [uncontrollable sobbing]

Back to the Future, joke or not, sets up it's sequel at the very end, including one of the only movies to be first in its franchise and yet promise a sequel without knowing how well opening night would perform.  And yet, 2&3 are about problems (the almanac, the west, Marty not liking being called a chicken) that are in no way connected the first movie.

Unless the Trilogy is called "the perils of time travel" and said perils include:

1. accidentally negating your own conception!
2. Trying to get rich by taking information to the past about the future and accidentally making the biggest butthead of them all get too powerful
3. Rabbits full of buckshot.

So... it's just funny that it ends with "to be continued" but it has less to continue than most other capital T Trilogies.  Star Wars, Matrix, etc.. were definitely instances where the sequels were put into production after the success of the initial movie, but where there was a problem that was still left to be resolved.  Those are tight Trilogies.  BTTF a little less so.  PotC a little less so.

Funny.  Ha ha.

Sluggo said:

Question:  Do you think movie trilogies (like BttF) follow the same 3 act pattern?  I know the classic SW movies do. 

Trilogies - yes.

Quadrilogies - no.

;)

More on that in a second, but on to this really quickly:

And if movies do or don't, do they influence how we define sequels?

I think so.  So far there's not another word for it, but you couldn't hardly say that the Indiana Jones Trilogy follows a Macro structure (they are simply sidequels, if that term suits you better (actually, I think sidequel is better used as a kind word for "movie spinoff" or "coattail rider")) nor could you identify any 3 Bond films and say that they follow a Macro structure.  But, as Scary Movie 3 taught us, trilogies often come in threes.  It's probably relatively easy to answer this question for most movie franchises:

Do the movies hold up to being watched out of order? 

But really, you already know the answer without being told.  You wouldn't want to miss an episode of Twin Peaks, or Lost, or Smallville... but you would probably be just fine if you dismissed an episode of Who's the Boss, Three's Company, or Taxi. 

But then you have the X-Files.  Half of the episodes are non-serial, and the other half definitely are.  So, how do you classify that series?  Or think of the Kirk Star Trek movies.  2, 3 and 4 form a trilogy/follow the act structure macroly- how retarded is that?  But it's clearly there.  You can skip 1 (oh, and I do!) and 5 (doubly so!) and get right on with 6... but even then you don't have to.

As I ranted earlier, I don't like it when people (not that 005 did this exactly, but he was in the ball park) assinuate that everything besides LotR is "sequels" and LotRs is "one big story broken into three separate parts, primarily for marketing purposes" and therefore shouldn't be discussed the way "sequels" are.  To that point, it's probably the reason that I left the theatre in 2001 not sure that the movie was actually over.  Not having read the books, I was a little confused when the movie said, "All right then.  Nothing more to see here, just move along!"  I knew it was the first of three movies, but still- the only contract that had been established with me as viewer was "the ring must be destroyed".  There were no "death stars" that needed to be destroyed, no "black pearls" to be recovered.  No mini act 1 problems to solve.  Which is odd for the book(s) regardless of whether you have 3 Macro Acts or just 3 acts.  I guess *SPOILERS!* Sam and Frodo escape the orcs and the Fellowship is broken- that is a change that marks the end of that Act one way or another... but it's far from a resolution to anything.  It doesn't send you out on a highnote.  Unless you were having a hard time telling the difference between Aragorn and Boromir.  Then... I guess there's a silver lining there.

So, I think we do need another word than "sequel" for trilogies that follow the Macro structure... how's about "sequal"?  No... maybe just "trilogy"?  And we ask the likes of Jurassic Park and Indiana Jones to stop using it.  I guess Indy already has.  And, in a couple of years, Jurassic Park will be a Quadrilogy too... so I guess all might be right in the world.

TheBoost said:

xhonzi said:

Which brings me back to the question: How do you know when you have enough?

 Its a question of mood.

Objectivly, there's rarely a need editing wise to show travel. A quick establishing shot and a character entering would usually be enough. But

Silverado's a fine example, because

• A significant part of that movie is the epic feel of the American West. It's a very self-aware Western.
• Traveling together is one of the main ways it establishes the bond between the four heroes, especially the end then they rejoin up.

So it has LOADS of horseriding with heroic music.

Easy Rider is a film whose main purpose is long shots of riding motorcycles with desert scenery. The sheer SCOPE of LOTR justifies much of its walking/running shots. You could probably cut 10 minutes from each movie easily just by trimming the traveling sequences, but something indefinable would be lost.

In Silence of the Lambs Starling travels all over the place investigating, but they don't show any of it because it would be counter to the mood of the film. Same with all the Indiana Jones films. Nothing would be gained by a 90 second mood piece of Indiana Jones in the car driving to Donovan's house.

Like with a fight scene or a sex scene, the real question is how invested is the audience to want to see this sequence go on compared to the rest of the movie.

I'm sorry- The answer was... 3.  That's right, 3.

Thanks for playing anyways, Boost.  Everyone give ChainsawAsh a big hand!