|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 22:35 |
|
|
Phi230 posted:That sounds more like fascism tbh. You seem to be hung up on farms being the crux of feudalism where no other evidence suggests it. I don't necessarily disagree. But from a moral standpoint fascism and feudalism share much in common, and it isn't a huge leap to analogize them when discussing the ideology of a fictional space government which exists in a universe which freely melds modern concepts with medieval ones. quote:Also it doesnt count because it was cut from the final draft. Why shouldn't it count? I say it does count. It's part of the official screenplay as published by Lucasfilm. Tatooine was still called Tatooine back in 1977, even though it was never named in the movie. Ewoks are still called Ewoks. Admiral Ackbar is still called Admiral Ackbar. It wasn't cut because it was incongruous with the universe the film was meant to establish. It was cut for pacing reasons. It's pretty clear what the Empire is all about. You think they weren't going around nationalizing businesses? That's the whole reason Lando is hiding his operation from them in ESB. Cnut the Great fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Oct 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
If you want the EU to be part of your headcanon fill your boots, lad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
There's much cut content from the first Star Wars. We judge a product by its final form, not earlier forms that were not intended to be presented. The scene you are quoting was actually filmed and deleted. We don't consider deleted scenes, generally. Stuff like LOTR is the exception, where they had to cut poo poo due to time constraints and added them in later for extra screen time. In this case, it was one of the many scenes and stuff that were cut to save the film. If you actually watch the scene its just awkward dialogue with very poor sound. Not very good. Its clear they didn't even give it much effort in the first place as the existing footage is very rough. Its clear that this was never meant to be apart of the final product. I don't think we should allow this as evidence for the reasons stated above.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:There's much cut content from the first Star Wars. We judge a product by its final form, not earlier forms that were not intended to be presented. The scene you are quoting was actually filmed and deleted. We don't consider deleted scenes, generally. Stuff like LOTR is the exception, where they had to cut poo poo due to time constraints and added them in later for extra screen time. This isn't a loving courtroom.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
If canon is your thing, the scripts were the highest level of canon.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
Nah, the finished movies supercede the scripts. The scripts always change as the filmmaking process moves forward to get the best product. Its like we have this diamond, guess we gotta go back and look at the lump of coal it came from.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:This isn't a loving courtroom. ur not a courtroom
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:Nah, the finished movies supercede the scripts. The scripts always change as the filmmaking process moves forward to get the best product. Yeah, I get it, and I think "we only worry about what's in the finished film" is one of the reasonable positions to take when looking at them. When people talk about canon and EU and such, which . . . you know, whatever . . . scripts were on the same level as movies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
On this specific point I have to agree with Tezzor. It's interesting to consider previous script drafts and such, but if its not in the movie then it's not in the movie.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
Are we going to separate out directorship into Lucas and the hypothetical "Deutero-Lucas" who may have shot scenes with the second unit? Will we consider the question of whether scenes with different extras playing the same character were edited together, creating a conflict of canonicity? Should we submit theological issues to the University of Paris, or handle them with the aid of an archbishop and several trained clerks?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
Pretty sure you should have used "Llucas "
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:This isn't a loving courtroom. Overruled.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Are we going to separate out directorship into Lucas and the hypothetical "Deutero-Lucas" who may have shot scenes with the second unit? what are you even talking about are you complaining that somehow ignoring the script means we need to disect the movie like that to find the ultimate nerd purity
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:what are you even talking about I am talking about canon, fool.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=8314141
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
Godot is right.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I am talking about canon, fool. well if you are taking the canon approach then yes, things you discover as time goes on adds to poo poo. But Star Wars is not the bible and the scripts being released are not the dead sea scrolls
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
Paratextual content such as commentary tracks and deleted scenes can provide insight that guides subsequent interpretation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:What's interesting is that Princess Leia starts off in ANH as a part of the same elitist, technological world of the Empire, and gradually throughout the trilogy--as her friendship with Luke and romance with the more free-spirited Han Solo intensifies--starts crossing over to become more a part of the more humble, natural world, as seen in the transition undergone by her wardrobe: I've always loved Leia's costumes but saw them more as representing her self-actualising journey from princess to soldier. When Lando pretties her up on Bespin it's Jabba's palace writ small, she's being objectified and intended to be kept as a trophy just as Things Are Going Wrong, rather than a natural progression of her character. The clothes she chooses to wear go from princess in a white gown -> practical beige clothes -> hunter garb -> straight up camo fatigues show that progression really distinctly, it's why I always found her final woodland princess outfit so unsatisfying. Of course judging by Force Awakens so did she.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
Battle of Endor and Hoth costumes best costumes
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:Well, the Empire itself kind of does get pretty feudalist. It isn't mentioned in the final cut of ANH, but the reason Luke doesn't like the Empire in A New Hope is because they were going around nationalizing peasant farms You're talking about a nation-state, not related to feudalism. Leia's Resistance, for example, is resisting state power in the abstract. The New Order is a generic commie-fascism that originated from inside the liberal-capitalist Republic. Those three things - liberalism, communism, and fascism - are presented as the enemy. The message of the film is a simplistic 'end the fed', but the alternative presented is not any sort of libertarianism or anarchism. It's all about knights enforcing the rule of a princess. There is no hint of progressive politics on the part of the resistance. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 00:42 on Oct 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:Paratextual content such as commentary tracks and deleted scenes can provide insight that guides subsequent interpretation. It can equally mislead. But as long as you can back it up with stuff that actually happens in the films, go nuts. Scripts are working documents, not the truth behind the legend.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Pretty sure you should have used "Llucas " Luucas
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
Thank you I hosed that up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:There's much cut content from the first Star Wars. We judge a product by its final form, not earlier forms that were not intended to be presented. The scene you are quoting was actually filmed and deleted. We don't consider deleted scenes, generally. Stuff like LOTR is the exception, where they had to cut poo poo due to time constraints and added them in later for extra screen time. Those scenes were filmed on the advice of Lucas's friends who thought it was a bad decision to not introduce the main protagonist until fifteen minutes into the movie: The Making of Star Wars posted:....It was Lucas’s own friends Matt Robbins and Hal Barwood who had provided another reason: They thought that Luke needed to appear earlier in the film, to establish a link with impatient audiences. “Steven Spielberg had read the script. All of my friends had read the script. Everybody who had read the script gave their input about what they thought was good, or bad, or indifferent; what worked, what didn’t work—and what was confusing. I would do the same on their scripts. Matt and Hal thought the first half hour of the film would be better if Luke was intercut with the robots, so I did that.” But ultimately Lucas decided he preferred his original idea of following the droids the whole time. He cut the scenes for pacing and storytelling reasons, not because they didn't reflect his vision of Luke or of the Empire. (So much for the theory that Lucas's friends were responsible for every good decision made on the film.) They were intended to be part of the final product until they weren't. They look and sound unfinished because they didn't get all the way through the mastering process before they were cut. That's how movies are made. How good you think these unfinished deleted scenes look has no bearing on anything important. Along with the Death Star battle and end scenes, these were the main scenes which Marcia Lucas worked on. They weren't throwaway scenes no one ever gave a poo poo about. sassassin posted:It can equally mislead. But as long as you can back it up with stuff that actually happens in the films, go nuts. Working scripts are working documents. Published screenplays that are actually edited before publication to be in accord with the finished film are pretty much gospel unless something else supersedes them later. That's why the published screenplay introduces the hero as Luke Skywalker instead of Luke Starkiller, like the actual scripts used on-set did. Again, by this logic Tatooine didn't have a name until The Empire Strikes Back. Published screenplays aren't EU. They're commentary that gives additional context to the finished film. Like, for instance, to answer the question of why the heck Luke hates the Empire even before they kill his aunt and uncle. Cnut the Great fucked around with this message at 05:56 on Oct 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 05:50
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:You're talking about a nation-state, not related to feudalism. Well yeah, nothing in the Star Wars can be feudalist by the actual technical definition because it's pretty constrained by the specific circumstances of the medieval period on Earth. The closest you can get to that is the Empire, though, which of course is actually much more like a fascist state in almost every way, being a large centralized nation-state rather than a fragmented collection of warring fiefdoms. But every other form of social organization you see in the films is even less like feudalism, except maybe for the Hutt cartel. quote:Leia's Resistance, for example, is resisting state power in the abstract. The New Order is a generic commie-fascism that originated from inside the liberal-capitalist Republic. Those three things - liberalism, communism, and fascism - are presented as the enemy. The message of the film is a simplistic 'end the fed', but the alternative presented is not any sort of libertarianism or anarchism. It's all about knights enforcing the rule of a princess. There is no hint of progressive politics on the part of the resistance. It just isn't that, though. It's about an order of warrior-monks acting as the mediating body for the legislative body of a democratic republic. Leia is a princess by name, but that has little to do with her status within the Rebellion in the OT, which is based on her having been a senator. And the warrior-monk Jedi aren't really analogous to anything we can point to in the real world; Lucas has described them as being like galactic therapists, non-aggressive in nature. They represent a spirit he wants to see reflected in democratic government more than they do any concrete prescription for political organization. TFA (probably unintentionally) does gives some credence to your interpretation, given that the Senate is treated as a complete non-entity, and the only two lenses through which any character in the film views Leia are as either a military commander or a monarch. The restored Senate seen at the end of ROTJ plays little to no role in the proceedings because democracy is boring and lame. The more I think about it, I agree with you very much that TFA is about a glorification of feudalism, but I just don't see it in the original movies. Cnut the Great fucked around with this message at 06:33 on Oct 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 06:30
|
|
|
The more recently released movie creates new contexts in which to understand its predecessors. The sequel trilogy ain't done yet, but it would've been cool if its opening chapter had been more assertive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 06:45
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:The more recently released movie creates new contexts in which to understand its predecessors. The sequel trilogy ain't done yet, but it would've been cool if its opening chapter had been more assertive. or good at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 07:04
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:
Except that during the edit and the shoot the script can change drastically, regardless if the script published was used on set or not. Like, wasn't Tarantino's True Romance script out of order in terms of sequence of events, and then Tony Scott rearranged them to be more linear? The script kinda doesn't matter all that much post film. Outside of insight into a writers mind and seeing what differences there are. Which is fine and cool. But it's useless in a discussion outside of that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 07:14
|
|
|
If I need to read a novel/comic book/script to understand a movie, that movie has failed. Luckily I don't, it hasn't, and Star Wars is good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 08:39
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:I agree with you very much that TFA is about a glorification of feudalism, but I just don't see it in the original movies. You need to be careful. No-one said anything about 'glorification'; that's not what ideological critique is about. It also has nothing to do with 'historical accuracy'. That Jedis never actually existed in history is irrelevant to the question of what ideology these characters express, and what the films express overall. The Jedi - at their purest - are feudalist. Dooku, Old Luke, and the Luke-worshipping Resistance characters in TFA are the prime examples. These are the characters who say "gently caress the Republic, put the Jedi in charge". They're all aristocrats pining for the good ol days before capitalism. Most Jedi in the films, however, are not 'pure'; they became a lot of hippies working for the liberal-democratic Republic. But there is still a tension there, and Windu's death was one result. Lucas is all about the liberals having feudal leanings. That's why Lando is simultaneously a baron and a captain of industry. Padme is an elected queen, etc. These characters aren't glorified. That's simply what they are. Even A New Hope presents Luke's knights-and-wizards stuff as hopelessly naive, and ends with a joke about the heroes potentially becoming the new nazis.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
Be careful, Cnut.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
rear end Catchcum posted:Be careful, Cnut. Glad I'm not the only one who saw the humor in that. Star wars thread is so weird.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
Canon is pretty funny to discuss. For example, what is the lady in white's name?  It's Mon Mothma, obviously, and she's about to tell us about how many bothans died to get the plans for the second Death Star. But her name isn't actually used in Return of the Jedi. It is mentioned once in Revenge of the Sith, and she's in the Clone Wars cartoon, but those came out over 20 years later. So, during that interregnum, what counts as good enough evidence that her name was Mon Mothma? The ending credits, which aren't a part of the narrative? The shooting script, which isn't part of the film at all? Trading cards?  Action figures?  Signed photos from the actress herself?  I would submit that, rather than worrying if we have to accept that Art Carney is a member of the Rebel Alliance if we also want Chewbacca to have a family, it doesn't actually matter where the information comes from, provided it makes for a better and more interesting story, and a more rewarding experience interacting with the film. Sometimes it's trivia, sometimes it makes a big difference, and sometimes it's meaningless. Toph Bei Fong fucked around with this message at 03:57 on Oct 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 03:54
|
|
|
The ending credits are still in the movie at least, they just aren't diegetic information.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 05:17
|
|
|
It's an interesting question if her name wasn't in the ending credits though, although I probably agree with u (and Tezzor??? :/) the movie is the thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
Also because I didn't know her name was Mon Mothma until relatively recently haha e: But for example, something like Drive where at the end Ryan Gosling is just credited as "The Driver" that adds differently thematically to the narrative than if the credits came up and it was like "Colton Burpo" Hat Thoughts fucked around with this message at 05:25 on Oct 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 05:23
|
|
|
Tbh I don't even recognize that character from the movies and while I've read the name Mon Mothma before I never could have told you what character it belongs to.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 05:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 22:35 |
|
|
Hat Thoughts posted:e: But for example, something like Drive where at the end Ryan Gosling is just credited as "The Driver" that adds differently thematically to the narrative than if the credits came up and it was like "Colton Burpo" It reminds me of Hamlet, and how (IIRC anyways) Claudius' name is never actually said in the play. I think some versions of the script even only have the character's name listed as "The King", which carries different connotations as with your Drive example.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 05:33
|
|