|
Cnut the Great posted:I gotta be honest, I've never been able to wrap my head around this widespread notion that Jedi Rocks is somehow the worst song ever but Lapti Nek is just the tits. Most of the hatred of disco is because of homophobia and racism.
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 04:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 09:29 |
|
|
Super Fan posted:Most of the hatred of disco is because of homophobia and racism. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 04:35
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:If he wanted to, he should be allowed to because he made the movie. It's not revisionist bullshit, it's respecting the prerogative of the artist over that of the consumer. Movies are a collaborative effort and Lucas is only a small part of the whole. you're a loving moron cnut
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 04:36
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:
I don't think anyone is arguing that Lucas is not allowed to do what he did.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 05:07
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:I gotta be honest, I've never been able to wrap my head around this widespread notion that Jedi Rocks is somehow the worst song ever but Lapti Nek is just the tits. I gotta be honest, I like Lapti Nek because it's disco.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 05:16
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:I gotta be honest, I've never been able to wrap my head around this widespread notion that Jedi Rocks is somehow the worst song ever but Lapti Nek is just the tits. Lapti Nek legit owns. Ahahaha YES. YES https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxEXvUGJqu4 Neo Rasa fucked around with this message at 05:25 on Jul 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 05:22
|
|
|
Disco rules. I never understood the holier than though "disco sucks" attitude. At least the genre lives on through that sweet French House music.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 05:33
|
|
|
Yaws posted:Movies are a collaborative effort and Lucas is only a small part of the whole. Oh, so we're back to minimizing Lucas' role to make ourselves feel better about liking his movies. Glad we're dredging that viewpoint back up
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 05:48
|
|
|
RedSpider posted:I mean how does anyone defend this revisionist bullshit. It would be like James Cameron deciding to replace the practical Alien Queen in Aliens with a digital one. That is the level loving bullshit we're dealing with here with Lucas. It's more like Ridley Scott adding this into Alien, only with garbage 1999 CGI and the alien is way stupider looking and the song sucks balls by an order of magnitude more. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVZUVeMtYXc UmOk posted:How did you do it? In a theater. I've never watched it in it's entirety since but it's burned into my brain. fake Edit: NM I just watched it on Youtube with the window open. Forgot about the Weequay jamming out on the drums jfc this is the worst thing ever put to film.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 06:24
|
|
|
Yaws posted:Movies are a collaborative effort and Lucas is only a small part of the whole. Lucas is several large parts of the whole of Star Wars.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 10:27
|
|
|
nvm
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 10:42
|
|
|
Just give me the first version of every Star War and I will be content. I'd rather have no "Episode IV" or no Leonard Maltin interviews over...all of that special edition poo poo on a nice Blu Ray where I can access all those special features instead of having to pay 80 bucks for versions of movies I don't like.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 10:48
|
|
|
The Special Editions will always hold a special place in my heart for being the first time I saw Star Wars in a theater. I lived in an area with only 1 theater and so the only things you could ever go see were new releases. When the SE came out in 1997 me and my dad went to go see the marathon showing and it ruled. Tons of people turned out in full costume (something I had never seen before). It was awesome to see Star Wars with a crowd for the first time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 11:14
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:If he wanted to, he should be allowed to because he made the movie. It's not revisionist bullshit, it's respecting the prerogative of the artist over that of the consumer. Holy poo poo this man is serious.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 11:57
|
|
|
RedSpider posted:Holy poo poo this man is serious. I too can't wait until the police finally catch mustache-twirling villain GEORGE LUCAS for the crimes he committed in re-releasing altered versions of films that belong to the fans!
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 14:03
|
|
|
The grotesqueness and sexual horror of Jabba's palace is already articulated as soon as you see the wet noses of the guards and the long slithery worm-head of his lackey. It's an incredibly tactile scene, and all the more lurid for it. Han emerging from the carbonite wet and blind like a perverse birth and Luke throwing his bone into the slimy mouth of the Rancor being two climactic points. Without this scene it is still clearly a place of sex slavery and the general decadence of an exploitative class. So not only is there no real need for this 'music video', it's a bad aesthetic decision set among a raft of other very good ones, hence the hostility. The music is Not Good, a pre-recorded theme-park robot band playing the blues to a speakeasy-themed foodcourt, the uvula shot is a cheap "shove-things-in-your-face-3D-wow" trickshot that would only unsettle and gross out a four-year-old, and worse it's not cool. Imagine if David Lynch really did direct Return of the Jedi, and the sleazy band actually played something genuinely unsettling. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPqZs7Vl_xg Instead it's like a joke about bogeys or farting in the belly of the space worm in ESB.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 14:27
|
|
|
Songs like Jedi Rocks are pretty common in kids' films, though, singing creature mugging for the camera and uvula shot and all. I am sure somebody more familiar with animated musical cinema could put together a montage of similar stuff going back to 40s and 50s cartoons. You can say it doesn't belong because it undercuts the dark and slimy tone of the original, and Lucas can say that it was always meant for children, and you'd both be right . . . from a certain point of view.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 14:35
|
|
|
J_RBG posted:The grotesqueness and sexual horror of Jabba's palace is already articulated as soon as you see the wet noses of the guards and the long slithery worm-head of his lackey. It's an incredibly tactile scene, and all the more lurid for it. Han emerging from the carbonite wet and blind like a perverse birth and Luke throwing his bone into the slimy mouth of the Rancor being two climactic points. Without this scene it is still clearly a place of sex slavery and the general decadence of an exploitative class. So not only is there no real need for this 'music video', it's a bad aesthetic decision set among a raft of other very good ones, hence the hostility. The music is Not Good, a pre-recorded theme-park robot band playing the blues to a speakeasy-themed foodcourt, the uvula shot is a cheap "shove-things-in-your-face-3D-wow" trickshot that would only unsettle and gross out a four-year-old, and worse it's not cool. Imagine if David Lynch really did direct Return of the Jedi, and the sleazy band actually played something genuinely unsettling. And yet, which part of all this filled Yaws with visceral disgust and revulsion, upsetting him enough to complain about it twenty years later? You actually got to the point: Jedi Rocks is genuinely tasteless. It crosses boundaries: "is this for kids?!" - "David Lynch would never do this!" And the difference is simple: where you originally gawked at the exotic sex-slavery and whatever as a detached observer, from outside, Jedi Rocks simultaneously draws you in and pushes you away. Instead of a tasteful orientalism from a father-figure producer you can trust, you fear that the father is has 'gone native' - become oriental. "This isn't art! It's crassly commercial!" And yet, at the same time, you insist that it appeals to no-one - an imagined miniscule demographic of kids (four and under) who purchase Blu-Rays. Of course it was never for them. It was always for you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 16:04
|
|
|
The hostility to the scene is unwarranted compared to its actual quality, but everything about the reception to Star Wars has been uniquely perverse. But anyway-- Either iteration of the music scene, in the original and in the Special Edition, is thematically congruent with what the sequence does for us but nevertheless underwhelming. Any argument for these scenes has to simply go beyond repeating that it makes sense - that's not enough as aesthetic criteria go. What you are describing- with regard to being pulled into the scene, undermining the alterity of the observer, the use of the 'lowbrow', is precisely what Lynch achieves in Blue Velvet in its musical scenes. Which is why I referred to him. You reach new conclusions about the evil in suburban America just by watching a song's performance. On the other hand here I sense the inventiveness went out of the window in this scene - just think of what a truly sleazy alien blues or disco would sound like (but the series' approach to music never really emphasises alterity, sadly). And of course tastelessness and the carnivalesque are unambiguously good qualities in a film such as this, especially in Jabba's palace, but you're not describing these qualities when you describe this scene, you're describing an idealised vision that isn't this scene. The pastiche you watch, regardless of edition, is a sanitised version of a superior genre - it's a decidedly safe, Disneyland, whitewashed, Clinton-era blues you're getting in the later version for example. It's what the Republican voting family next door thought plays in dive bars: Joe Cocker. It's an attempt at making sleaziness fun, making the viewer complicit in the horror - which is all good here - but falls short, because it's not fun or cool, and so has no hope of pulling the viewer up short. Luckily the rest of the sequence works fine, and the film conveniently forgets this musical episode.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
I just wanted to say that I hate all of you because I have had both Lapti Nek and Jedi Rocks going through my head, back and forth, all day, and I want to die.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
J_RBG posted:The hostility to the scene is unwarranted compared to its actual quality, but everything about the reception to Star Wars has been uniquely perverse. But anyway-- Attn: prequel haters and SE dislikers, this is how you critique what you don't like about them, not just saying "I didn't like it so they are bad films". A+, J_RBG
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
J_RBG posted:On the other hand here I sense the inventiveness went out of the window in this scene - just think of what a truly sleazy alien blues or disco would sound like (but the series' approach to music never really emphasises alterity, sadly). And of course tastelessness and the carnivalesque are unambiguously good qualities in a film such as this, especially in Jabba's palace, but you're not describing these qualities when you describe this scene, you're describing an idealised vision that isn't this scene. To be clear, you think the scene where we get a closeup of a CGI muppet's uvula is too tasteful?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
Lucas has been changing Star Wars since the mono sound mix released in June 1977 - Which of these versions is correct?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
The first one
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
His changes to the movies wouldn't have been remotely offensive if he hadn't effectively buried the original versions in the process. Like, tons of movies have questionable directors cuts, but you can just shrug it off because no one else has been up their own rear end enough to try and take away the preferred version of a film for the sake of "completing his vision" or whatever. At least to my knowledge.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
Are there multiple different versions of the Jedi Rocks scene? Like, are the VHS, DVD, and Bluray versions of it all different?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:Are there multiple different versions of the Jedi Rocks scene? Like, are the VHS, DVD, and Bluray versions of it all different? This is all I could find: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1sF9veTzuU
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
veni veni veni posted:His changes to the movies wouldn't have been remotely offensive if he hadn't effectively buried the original versions in the process. Like, tons of movies have questionable directors cuts, but you can just shrug it off because no one else has been up their own rear end enough to try and take away the preferred version of a film for the sake of "completing his vision" or whatever. At least to my knowledge. To be fair, options like this makes trying to watch Dune for the first time complicated. "Alright, I'll finally give Dune a shot...let's see...The 137 min 1984 Lynch Cut., 1989 189 min Extended Cut, 177 Min cut for DVD and VHS...uhhh...." Blade Runner, too, if I remember correctly. I mean, I'll take it over no options, for sure.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
Covok posted:This is all I could find: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1sF9veTzuU AFAIK that's the original. But there are multiple versions of the Special Editions, I'm just wondering if that scene changed between them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:AFAIK that's the original. But there are multiple versions of the Special Editions, I'm just wondering if that scene changed between them. The internet tells me the 2011 Blu Ray changes to Jabba's Palace just changed some lighting here and there (but nothing in the Jedi Rocks scene) and added a Dug in with the group of sleeping aliens (again, not that scene). Oh, and they made the door to Jabba's Palace way bigger. The 2004 DVD release didn't have any changes to Jabba's Palace scenes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
thrawn527 posted:The internet tells me the 2011 Blu Ray changes to Jabba's Palace just changed some lighting here and there (but nothing in the Jedi Rocks scene) and added a Dug in with the group of sleeping aliens (again, not that scene). Oh, and they made the door to Jabba's Palace way bigger. Ok thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
thrawn527 posted:To be fair, options like this makes trying to watch Dune for the first time complicated. So just watch the first one or the best one? And if you like it check out the other cuts if you want.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:So just watch the first one or the best one? And if you like it check out the other cuts if you want. That's potentially a lot of time to dedicate to something when I don't even know if I'll like it. (Hypothetical me, I've seen them by now, this was years ago.) And isn't the first cut of Blade Runner universally accepted as the worst? So then it takes some research to see which version is "the best", if there's ever even a consensus on what "the best" is. Again, I prefer having the options over Star Wars hiding them. I'm just saying.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
thrawn527 posted:That's potentially a lot of time to dedicate to something when I don't even know if I'll like it. (Hypothetical me, I've seen them by now, this was years ago.) To save you some trouble, the Final Cut of Blade Runner is 100% absolutely the best version of the movie. It definitively fixes every little thing each of the other versions suffered from. Theatrical Cut - The voice over is lame and it has a suddenly happy ending out of nowhere. European Cut - The moments where characters are killed are slightly more graphic but it's very poorly done. As an example is for one character is you can literally see the stunt person that has totally different hair from the actor holding the trigger with a cable running to their chest to trigger the squib. In the Theatrical version you can see this for just a second. Director's Cut - Removes the voice over and keeps the originally intended vaguer ending, but creates an odd continuity error here and there in the process. Blade Runner is a slow burn movie in any form but this version feels a bit abrupt and was admittedly rushed by Scott because WB wanted to get something out ASAP once the work print was accidentally discovered (the film was to be shown at a university and WB accidentally sent it to them instead of the theatrical version, starting this whole thing). The Final Cut........... Voice over is gone and the better ending is kept. The continuity is tightened up and a few additional transitional moments that were in the script but weren't made were newly filmed for this and seamlessly worked in, down to digitally applying Harrison Ford's son's face to Ford's in order to re-lip-synch a scene where the dialogue didn't match up at all. The violence is the same as the European version but way more impactful instead of silly because one instance of it is completely re-filmed with the original actor instead of a stuntperson. The other isn't changed visually but the sound effects and general sound of the moment is significantly improved and, while it's tame by like Saw movie standards or whatever, works great in the movie now. On top of that a LOT of the effects work is cleaned up. Mainly by digitally covering up instances where cables/etc. are visible, hiding the spots where you could see the rigging holding up the hovering cars, etc. The sound mix is redone and way better. If you DO have time, almost more interesting than the previous cuts is that that among the special features is a large number of deleted scenes, about 45 minutes worth! You can play them all in order and it ends up being a bizarre first draft of the movie. I know this is hypothetical you, but if anyone else was curious here you go. Neo Rasa fucked around with this message at 22:20 on Jul 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
Schwarzwald posted:To be clear, you think the scene where we get a closeup of a CGI muppet's uvula is too tasteful? There are better ways of grossing people out yeah Like for example children aren't exactly going to be impressed by it when so much else in the sequence is much more vivid, and so much children's media is routinely more disgusting
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 23:23
|
|
|
J_RBG posted:(but the series' approach to music never really emphasises alterity, sadly) Good post, but https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpecPKuUYnE
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
So how are they going to explain a 25 year old Han Solo played by Aiden Ehrenreich becoming a 25 year old Han Solo played by Harrison Ford in A New Hope? Has Disney sent the market research through corporate for explaining this yet?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
RedSpider posted:So how are they going to explain a 25 year old Han Solo played by Aiden Ehrenreich becoming a 25 year old Han Solo played by Harrison Ford in A New Hope? Has Disney sent the market research through corporate for explaining this yet? The new movie is going to replace A New Hope in the Canon. It's being marketed as a Rogue One sequel.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 01:29
|
|
|
RedSpider posted:So how are they going to explain a 25 year old Han Solo played by Aiden Ehrenreich becoming a 25 year old Han Solo played by Harrison Ford in A New Hope? Has Disney sent the market research through corporate for explaining this yet? Aiden is playing a younger-than-25 Han?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 02:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 09:29 |
|
|
veni veni veni posted:His changes to the movies wouldn't have been remotely offensive if he hadn't effectively buried the original versions in the process. Like, tons of movies have questionable directors cuts, but you can just shrug it off because no one else has been up their own rear end enough to try and take away the preferred version of a film for the sake of "completing his vision" or whatever. At least to my knowledge. Preferred version ?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 02:42
|
|
