|
sassassin posted:His original vision was for the laser swords to be really heavy and hard to move for some *science-y* reasons. More mythic reasons, I believe said they were like Excalibur.
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 21:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 02:22 |
|
|
First, there was the original trilogy. Then, there was the prequel trilogy. Now, there is the sequel trilogy. Soon, there will be...the Vong trilogy!!!
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
Wallace and Grommet in: The Vong Trousers
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
Schwarzwald posted:Wallace and Grommet in: The Vong Trousers Sylvester Stallone in Stop! Or My Vong Will Shoot
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 23:18
|
|
|
Serf posted:Didn't Lucas once describe his original vision for the lightsaber battle between Obi-Wan and Anakin as the physical swordfight just being a layer on top of a supernatural contest of wills happening invisible to the naked eye? Yeah, he always wanted them moving things with their minds and conjuring lightning and stuff, but didn't get to do a fight like that in the original, so during the production of Empire Strikes Back he talked about including a line where Obi-Wan explains there was an invisible battle going on at the same time. Plus, I think in the script for ANH it emphasizes that Obi-Wan is supposed to be concentrating intently in a way that is suggestive of the battle taking place on two planes. As someone mentioned, that's a pretty standard martial arts movie trope, but it makes a lot of sense with the Force concept as well. Also, part of the reason the laser sword fights were slow in the original trilogy is because they weren't as durable as the lightsabers in the more recent movies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
Beeez posted:including a line where Obi-Wan explains there was an invisible battle going on at the same time. Plus, I think in the script for ANH it emphasizes that Obi-Wan is supposed to be concentrating intently in a way that is suggestive of the battle taking place on two planes. Given certain revelations at the end of ESB and Luke's conversation with Obi-Wan in RotJ though that would seem about as honest as Yanagi Ryuken: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdUxPLIJVgI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jf3Gc2a0_8
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
Much like Obi-Wan v Maul, Obi-Wan v Darth Vader was a battle that was decided long before they met face-to-face
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 00:14
|
|
|
Vinylshadow posted:Much like Obi-Wan v Maul, Obi-Wan v Darth Vader was a battle that was decided long before they met face-to-face The EU cartoons would have you believe the former was decided decades after.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
sassassin posted:The EU cartoons would have you believe the former was decided decades after. What is the deal with Rebels? I always assumed Obi-Wan was chilling on tatooine by himself or what ever. But it turns out he has been hanging out with secret Jedis and having fights with Darth Mauls? I am only assuming this based on clips I've seen.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 02:03
|
|
|
UmOk posted:What is the deal with Rebels? I always assumed Obi-Wan was chilling on tatooine by himself or what ever. But it turns out he has been hanging out with secret Jedis and having fights with Darth Mauls? Obi Wan has been in a grand total of one episode. Maul and Ezra got a force vision of where Obi Wan has been hiding out, and Maul goes to Tattooine to exact revenge.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 02:05
|
|
|
UmOk posted:What is the deal with Rebels? I always assumed Obi-Wan was chilling on tatooine by himself or what ever. But it turns out he has been hanging out with secret Jedis and having fights with Darth Mauls? No, he was just chilling on Tatoonie. But Erza hosed up and help Darth Maul get a force vision that allowed him to find Kenobi. Then Maul tortured Erza on Tatoonie so that Obi Wan would come and save him. Then there was an awesome Kurosawa duel.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 02:05
|
|
|
Covok posted:No, he was just chilling on Tatoonie. But Erza hosed up and help Darth Maul get a force vision that allowed him to find Kenobi. Then Maul tortured Erza on Tatoonie so that Obi Wan would come and save him. Then there was an awesome Kurosawa duel. Did Maul get cut in half vertically this time?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 02:11
|
|
|
UmOk posted:Did Maul get cut in half vertically this time? I would hope for crinkle-cut.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 02:12
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeG215-yu-k
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 02:15
|
|
|
I do like Obi Wan regarding Luke as the chosen one, and Maul's assertion with his dying breath that Luke will avenge both of them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 02:20
|
|
|
homullus posted:I would hope for crinkle-cut. So how long until they bring him back as a cyborg?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 02:25
|
|
|
Serf posted:Didn't Lucas once describe his original vision for the lightsaber battle between Obi-Wan and Anakin as the physical swordfight just being a layer on top of a supernatural contest of wills happening invisible to the naked eye? These days they would turn that into an excuse to green-screen the whole thing and load it down with overbearing CGI while the swordfight goes down like some Doctor Strange poo poo. You know, Big Trouble in Little China really was the best Star Wars movie.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
I just found out that it used to be a tidbit in Legends that Darth Vader once made a clone of Starkiller (from Force Unleashed) merged with Darth Maul called Maulkiller and he looked like this: Maulkiller. loving Maulkiller. That ranks up there with Luuke.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 05:39
|
|
|
Covok posted:I just found out that it used to be a tidbit in Legends that Darth Vader once made a clone of Starkiller (from Force Unleashed) merged with Darth Maul called Maulkiller and he looked like this: I'd have liked for a final showdown between Starkiller and the Dark Apprentice where they kill each other off and life goes on
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 07:48
|
|
|
Tender Bender posted:I don't think anyone is arguing that Lucas is not allowed to do what he did. I suppose not, but the prevailing tone seems to be that it's some sort of complete moral affront to art and decency, rather than simply being a creative decision some fans don't like. Yaws posted:Movies are a collaborative effort and Lucas is only a small part of the whole. So once again we've wrapped back around to the "What about the key grip? Didn't Lucas ever consider his feelings?" argument. Always such a sterling little bit of rhetoric defined by its ironclad logic and intellectual unassailability. Which also conveniently ignores the fact that the original versions were all also Lucas's final cuts which he made unilateral changes to, sometimes even after the first run of film prints had already been sent out to theaters. And that's putting aside the notion that Lucas could ever reasonably be described as a "small" part of the whole. That's an unbelievably foolish thing to say if you know anything at all about the production history of the movies, regardless of whether you bizarrely take issue with the fact that Kershner and Marquand both agreed of their own free will to cede final cut to the progenitor and creative director of the series who, of course, hired them to execute his story using his characters in the world he created. My point is it's not exactly the story of some uninvolved, money-obsessed studio hack who sat twiddling his thumbs in an office before unjustly wresting creative control out of the hands of the true auteurs against their will. That is and always has been an ahistorical narrative motivated solely by the rabid animosity of bitter fanboys. There would be no Star Wars, no Empire, and no Jedi without Lucas, not because he held the purse strings and the copyright, but because he was the ultimate creative source out of which everything else sprung. Kershner, Kasdan, Marquand, McQuarrie, Marcia Lucas, Paul Hirsch, Richard Chew, and everyone else involved in the production of the films wouldn't have a single loving thing to start with if they didn't have Lucas there to provide them with the unique creative vision only he possessed. The only people who arguably even approach being as indispensable to what Star Wars is on a basic level are Ben Burtt and John Williams, because out of everyone their creative contributions are by the far the least dependent on Lucas's own imaginative faculties and filmmaking skills. Irvin Kershner was a great man and a great director. But The Empire Strikes Back, even if in a different form than what we know, could probably have been made by many other great directors while still maintaining its basic essence. But without Lucas, there's nothing even remotely resembling The Empire Strikes Back. It doesn't exist, period, at all. There's no Gone with the Wind in space, there are no terror-inducing fifty-foot-tall walking mechs cynically dashing the hopes of youthfully optimistic Rebels on a snow planet, there are no abominable snowmen co-habitating a world with ice-lizards that are used as knightly steeds by the heroes, there's no 900-year-old gnomish frog man who talks in backwards riddles about us being "luminous beings", there's no asteroid cave sanctuary which half-terrifyingly and half-comically turns into the belly of a giant space worm in a pithy summation of the entire film, there's no mysterious high-tech armored mercenary wearing a jetpack, there's no cold industrial hell hidden within a city in the clouds, there's no smooth-talking libertarian gambler in a cape living in an Art Deco paradise, there's no metaphorical Humpty-Dumpty subplot involving C-3PO getting blown to pieces and put back together by his friends, there's no dark fairy tale turn about a rogue-turned-lover being tragically turned to stone, there's no shockingly Freudian hand amputation over a dark bottomless pit followed by an "I am your father" reveal. Literally none of this stuff exists or has any hope of ever existing without Lucas. Are all those things really so small and inconsequential in your eyes? Without these things, all you're left with is competent direction and snappy banter, completely devoid of any of the originality or the mythic resonance or the idiosyncratic mix of influences, interests, and experiences of one man named George Lucas which infuses everything that's most basic to the appeal of the series. Film is a collaborative medium, but that doesn't' mean some collaborators aren't more important than others--sometimes far more important.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 08:15
|
|
|
Vinylshadow posted:Even with all its faults, TFU was a fun little power fantasy game where the story wasn't important and holding a stormtrooper, electrocuting him, throwing your lightsaber into him, then using him as a flail against his fellow troopers was The showdown must be the complete opposite of that Maul vs Kenoni duel. They should run at each other while screaming and slashing lightsabers. They should also figt in the hangar of a Star Destroyer, and with every swing and explosion and physics objects (TIE fighters included) thrown at each other the ship is destroyed bit by bit until the opponents are literally fighting in the void of space with only the Force keeping them alive. Then they proceed to Force Throw debris and asteroids at each other while continuing to fight, eventually upgrading to using moons and planets as projectiles.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 08:15
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:I suppose not, but the prevailing tone seems to be that it's some sort of complete moral affront to art and decency, rather than simply being a creative decision some fans don't like. That is because it is a moral affront to art and decency. He changed what made those movies masterpieces in the first place. Still, the worst part about all this is how Lucas still has a following of devotees who vigorously apologize for every Ministry of Truth action he made on the SEs after destroying the public's access to the original cuts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 08:25
|
|
|
This is loving fantastic and makes me want to finally catch up on Rebels. The way Obi-Wan impulsively adopts his haughty, Erroll Flynn-esque fighting stance from Episode III in response to Maul's provocation, but then deliberately shifts to Qui-Gon's more measured and serious-minded fighting stance from Episode I before calmly dispatching Maul and then compassionately cradling him in his arms as he dies....just a really great story told visually which totally grasps the core themes of the series. Dave Filoni is really the one guy at Lucasfilm who I think still really gets what Star Wars is actually about. RedSpider posted:That is because it is a moral affront to art and decency. He changed what made those movies masterpieces in the first place. Still, the worst part about all this is how Lucas still has a following of devotees who vigorously apologize for every Ministry of Truth action he made on the SEs after destroying the public's access to the original cuts. An artist making alterations to his own work to in order to accord with his artistic principles is not and never will be anything but his own totally defensible moral prerogative, no matter how many bitter fanboys are upset about the fact that George Lucas's sense of integrity prevented him from betraying those principles in order to cater to the interests of them, the consumers. He didn't destroy the public's access to the original cuts. I own versions of the original cuts in several different forms myself. You see, I bought copies of them, and as a result I own those copies. They're also preserved in the Library of Congress for posterity. What Lucas did is make a choice not to continue to sell copies of those versions because he doesn't stand behind them as an artist. It's really not his job or his responsibility to do what you're asking him to do. He made the art, and he can choose to exhibit it in whatever manner he pleases. The central idea you and many other people seem tragically unable to wrap your heads around is the fact that it's reprehensible to claim the moral right to compel an artist to present his art--and thus express himself--in a way that is perhaps to the public's liking but not to his. The fact that a movie is reproducible in a way that a painting or a sculpture perhaps is not, and that the right of an artist to alter his work necessarily destroys the earlier work in one case but not in the other, is totally immaterial to the argument, because it's one of artistic principle, not of practicality. You can (with permission) take a picture of a painting in progress and keep it for yourself, but you can't force an artist to take pictures of the painting and then give them or sell them to you. The whole point is that a work of art is as an artist's lasting statement to the world. It's totally understandable that an artist wouldn't want to preserve or distribute an earlier, unfinished version of his art which he feels inaccurately represents himself, and then have that (to him) inaccurate version forever competing with his final statement for supremacy. The idea is that after an artist dies and a sufficient amount of time has passed (the optimal amount of time is obviously a great matter of debate, but that's a separate matter), then the artist loses--along with his ability to exert influence on the world as a living being--the ability to control the disposition of his art as a reflection on his character, and at that point all those things instead pass rightfully to the public. Star Wars is not the Mahabharata. It's a series of movies, and the artist who made them is still alive. The moral rights of the artist still currently trump the rights of the public to its cultural heritage. Star Wars' place in our culture and in history has not yet truly been cemented, and Lucas (at least, arguably, until and if he ceded what moral rights he had to Disney) still has the right to influence how that place is cemented and how exactly his act of individual expression will come to exist permanently in the public record. I'm sorry, but that's just the way it works, and should work, in this constant balancing act our society has to make between the rights of the individual and the rights of the community. I'm sorry it's slightly harder for you to watch a particular version of a set of space movies you happen to like. You're just going to have to deal with it, though (for now). Cnut the Great fucked around with this message at 09:03 on Jul 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 08:29
|
|
|
RedSpider posted:That is because it is a moral affront to art and decency. He changed what made those movies masterpieces in the first place. Still, the worst part about all this is how Lucas still has a following of devotees who vigorously apologize for every Ministry of Truth action he made on the SEs after destroying the public's access to the original cuts. Funny thing, film is derived in large part from theater. People once found theater morally objectionable as well, but not because each performance was potentially radically different from the last. A director making changes to an edition of their work is not comparable to Orwellian dictatorship altering a society's collective historical record; the most seriously I can take that sort of overwrought bloviation is to point out that it demonstrates that you don't understand art, history, or politics in the slightest.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 09:05
|
|
|
RedSpider posted:That is because it is a moral affront to art and decency. He changed what made those movies masterpieces in the first place. Still, the worst part about all this is how Lucas still has a following of devotees who vigorously apologize for every Ministry of Truth action he made on the SEs after destroying the public's access to the original cuts. lmao
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 10:23
|
|
|
The MSJ posted:The showdown must be the complete opposite of that Maul vs Kenoni duel. They should run at each other while screaming and slashing lightsabers. They should also figt in the hangar of a Star Destroyer, and with every swing and explosion and physics objects (TIE fighters included) thrown at each other the ship is destroyed bit by bit until the opponents are literally fighting in the void of space with only the Force keeping them alive. Then they proceed to Force Throw debris and asteroids at each other while continuing to fight, eventually upgrading to using moons and planets as projectiles.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 10:38
|
|
|
A character named "Skywalker" attempts a jumping assault and gets his legs cut off. Not replying to anything here, I just figured someone might appreciate that thought.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 10:46
|
|
|
The MSJ posted:The showdown must be the complete opposite of that Maul vs Kenoni duel. They should run at each other while screaming and slashing lightsabers. That's not the opposite of their fight.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 12:44
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:A character named "Skywalker" attempts a jumping assault and gets his legs cut off. Another one falls off a sky planet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 13:22
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:This is loving fantastic and makes me want to finally catch up on Rebels. The way Obi-Wan impulsively adopts his haughty, Erroll Flynn-esque fighting stance from Episode III in response to Maul's provocation, but then deliberately shifts to Qui-Gon's more measured and serious-minded fighting stance from Episode I before calmly dispatching Maul and then compassionately cradling him in his arms as he dies....just a really great story told visually which totally grasps the core themes of the series. To add to this, Maul notices Kenobi's stance change, which causes him to also change his stance, so he can try the exact same thing that finished off Qui-Gon (lightsaber hilt to the face). But this was Obi-Wan's plan all along, he's ready for it, and slices through it (and Maul). It's a really good scene. As warning though, while I really like Rebels, that is, by far, the best scene in the show. So I wouldn't expect quite that level of quality all the time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 13:22
|
|
|
thrawn527 posted:As warning though, while I really like Rebels, that is, by far, the best scene in the show. So I wouldn't expect quite that level of quality all the time. Yeah I googled "Darth Maul" because I was curious how they explained him not being dead, and lmao just leave it at that little clip.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 13:24
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:Yeah I googled "Darth Maul" because I was curious how they explained him not being dead, and lmao just leave it at that little clip. His explanation actually happened in The Clone Wars, but yeah, it's basically, "...look, he's not dead because we want to use him, okay? Just.....go with it."
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 13:27
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:I'm sorry it's slightly harder for you to watch a particular version of a set of space movies you happen to like. You're just going to have to deal with it, though (for now). This smug, "above-it-all" statement is an excellent coda to multiple walls of text in defense of Jedi Rocks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 13:29
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:Yeah I googled "Darth Maul" because I was curious how they explained him not being dead, and lmao just leave it at that little clip. The Dark Side of the Force is a pathway to abilities which many consider to be... useful if you get sliced in half with a lightsaber.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 13:59
|
|
|
Tender Bender posted:This smug, "above-it-all" statement is an excellent coda to multiple walls of text in defense of Jedi Rocks. This is the Star Wars thread, in the films discussion forum, for discussing the film Star Wars.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 14:29
|
|
|
Schwarzwald posted:This is the Star Wars thread, in the films discussion forum, for discussing the film Star Wars. Which is why it's obnoxious to be all "I'm sorry about your space movies but you just have to deal with it"
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 14:31
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:A director making changes to an edition of their work is not comparable to Orwellian dictatorship altering a society's collective historical record Yes it is. Lucas himself said so in 1988.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 16:15
|
|
|
RedSpider posted:Yes it is. Lucas himself said so in 1988. I thought he said studios doing that was. He had no issues with creators editing their own creations.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
Yeah, he was specifically calling out copyright holders who change films to make money:George Lucas posted:I accuse the corporations, who oppose the moral rights of the artist, of being dishonest and insensitive to American cultural heritage and of being interested only in their quarterly bottom line, and not in the long-term interest of the Nation. However, a lot of the stuff he mentions is pretty much exactly what he does in his own revisions, so people tend to focus on that: George Lucas posted:Today, engineers with their computers can add color to black-and-white movies, change the soundtrack, speed up the pace, and add or subtract material to the philosophical tastes of the copyright holder. Tomorrow, more advanced technology will be able to replace actors with “fresher faces,” or alter dialogue and change the movement of the actor’s lips to match. It will soon be possible to create a new “original” negative with whatever changes or alterations the copyright holder of the moment desires.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 02:22 |
|
|
The key point there is corporations and copyright holders making changes in opposition to the artist.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 16:57
|
|