|
Lucas' desire to retcon even extents to stuff like The Making of Star Wars, wherein author J. W. Rinzler was told to insert post-facto documents about how Lucas totally thought about Midichlorians in 1976 when drafting up Star Wars.
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 04:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 15:33 |
|
|
there's absolutely no indication that midichlorians lead to force powers. that's the most obvious take on qui-gon measuring anakin's MC count, and the one that nerds have raged about for nearly twenty years now, but if you assume lucas's statements about the nature of the force are generally supposed to be consistent with each other (which is giving him excess benefit of the doubt but let's go with it), that's not possible. so, instead, let's apply a bit of knowledge about biology and medicine  many scientific tests don't actually directly measure what they are intended to measure; instead, they monitor a more easily measured quantity that directly correlates with a difficult to measure quantity to indicate how the difficult to measure quantity is changing. in other words, midichlorian count is an indicator of connection to the force, not a cause of it. maybe they feed on force power energy and anakin attracted tons of them because he used the force all the time to cheat at podracing, and is naturally strong with the force.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 05:06
|
|
|
jivjov posted:Lucas' desire to retcon even extents to stuff like The Making of Star Wars, wherein author J. W. Rinzler was told to insert post-facto documents about how Lucas totally thought about Midichlorians in 1976 when drafting up Star Wars. Which is why I’ve never read that book, but I’ve read The Secret History of Star Wars by Michael Kaminski many times. One is marketing. The other is, at least trying to be, a historical look at a piece of media.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 05:11
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:there's absolutely no indication that midichlorians lead to force powers. that's the most obvious take on qui-gon measuring anakin's MC count, and the one that nerds have raged about for nearly twenty years now, but if you assume lucas's statements about the nature of the force are generally supposed to be consistent with each other (which is giving him excess benefit of the doubt but let's go with it), that's not possible. so, instead, let's apply a bit of knowledge about biology and medicine This is how I personally choose to view midichlorians, but The Phantom Menace outright says you, and I, are wrong. Qui Gon says that midichlorians talk to you, and help you communicate with the Force.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 05:17
|
|
|
thrawn527 posted:This is how I personally choose to view midichlorians, but The Phantom Menace outright says you, and I, are wrong. Qui Gon says that midichlorians talk to you, and help you communicate with the Force. he's talking to a dumb ten year old and doesn't want to freak him out by telling him he has bacteria that are eating his force powers
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 05:21
|
|
|
jivjov posted:Lucas' desire to retcon even extents to stuff like The Making of Star Wars, wherein author J. W. Rinzler was told to insert post-facto documents about how Lucas totally thought about Midichlorians in 1976 when drafting up Star Wars. It's such a shame, because it's otherwise a very nicely presented series of books - nice photographs, concept art, behind the scenes stuff - I just can't trust anything it says. Lucas has always been weird about this revisionist crap, look no further than the twenty billion random edits made to the OT, but trying to change his own history to say "Yeah it was all planned from the beginning, honest", is plain loving weird. thrawn527 posted:Which is why I’ve never read that book, but I’ve read The Secret History of Star Wars by Michael Kaminski many times. One is marketing. The other is, at least trying to be, a historical look at a piece of media. I keep meaning to get that. Oh well, 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 06:04
|
|
|
In the mini-doc A Conversation with The Masters there's a part where Lucas outright calls the Force a load of mumbo-jumbo he came up with on the fly to fill some time in the middle of the film. The dude is wildly inconsistent with his personal mythology and I love it. I recommend checking the documentary out - there's a lot of surprisingly honest talk about Empire from Lucas, Williams and Kershner, with Lucas even outright stating the films would be unwatchable garbage without John Williams music.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 12:15
|
|
|
Cat Machine posted:In the mini-doc A Conversation with The Masters there's a part where Lucas outright calls the Force a load of mumbo-jumbo he came up with on the fly to fill some time in the middle of the film. The dude is wildly inconsistent with his personal mythology and I love it. I recommend checking the documentary out - there's a lot of surprisingly honest talk about Empire from Lucas, Williams and Kershner, with Lucas even outright stating the films would be unwatchable garbage without John Williams music. poo poo, TFA was unwatchable garbage even WITH John Williams sacore and its little more than a remake of ANH. I the the first two movies just had their own charm that worked at the time. I can imagine Star Wars still taking off even if it had different music.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
Skoll posted:poo poo, TFA was unwatchable garbage even WITH John Williams sacore and its little more than a remake of ANH. You know The Force Awakens is a sequel...right? It is not at all a remake of anything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
jivjov posted:You know The Force Awakens is a sequel...right? It is not at all a remake of anything. You can beat that drum all you want, it was a garbage remake and nothing will change that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
Skoll posted:You can beat that drum all you want, it was a garbage remake and nothing will change that. It's not a remake though. It's episode VII. A New Hope was Episode IV. Characters from IV appear in VII, decades older. New characters that weren't in IV are the focus of VII.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
jivjov posted:It's not a remake though. It's episode VII. A New Hope was Episode IV. Characters from IV appear in VII, decades older. New characters that weren't in IV are the focus of VII. I think you are completely missing my point by being needlessly pedantic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
Unstoppable force, meet immovable object.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
Skoll posted:I think you are completely missing my point by being needlessly pedantic. No, the "it's a remake!!!" thing is really lazy criticism that ignores the areas where the film is, in fact, different or the different places the film goes in favor of surface superficial and genuinely lame criticism. It absolutely mimics elements of the original trilogy, sometimes rather closely, but presents a different context and series of events. It's as much a remake as Phantom Menace was, right down to the mentor being killed by the sith lord in front of his student and the plucky young Skywalker scoring a one-in-a-million shot that blows up the enemy space station to win the battle.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 22:29
|
|
thrawn527 posted:Unstoppable force, meet immovable object. I am so sick of these star wars nerds.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:No, the "it's a remake!!!" thing is really lazy criticism that ignores the areas where the film is, in fact, different or the different places the film goes in favor of surface superficial and genuinely lame criticism. It absolutely mimics elements of the original trilogy, sometimes rather closely, but presents a different context and series of events. It's as much a remake as Phantom Menace was, right down to the mentor being killed by the sith lord in front of his student and the plucky young Skywalker scoring a one-in-a-million shot that blows up the enemy space station to win the battle. Into Darkness wasn't a remake either, JJ Abrams totally isn't a lazy filmmaker with prior examples of TFA. You're totally right. My bad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
Into Darkness isn't a remake of Wrath of Khan. It is a film with khan in it that had a number of references to star trek 2
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 23:05
|
|
|
Arcsquad12 posted:Into Darkness isn't a remake of Wrath of Khan. It is a film with khan in it that had a number of references to star trek 2
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
Skoll posted:Into Darkness wasn't a remake either, JJ Abrams totally isn't a lazy filmmaker with prior examples of TFA. You're totally right. My bad. "Into Darkness" was a 'remake' that was tonally and plotwise completely different from the film it was based on and was only a 'remake' in that it was an alternate timeline version of a story featuring the same villain. (Who, it should be noted, debuted in an episode of the TV series which the film also references and homages.) It isn't a remake any more than Man of Steel is a remake of Superman 2. Star Trek Nemesis is more of a remake of Wrath of Khan than Into Darkness is. Like if your argument is "it contains references to the rest of the franchise" then poo poo yes it does. So does pretty much every Star Trek (and Star Wars) film which are remarkably incestuous to the point we came a deleted scene away from having Baby Greedo or Baby Han Solo running around in the prequel trilogy and Yoda hung out with Chewbacca. It's fine if you think it's a bad thing but it ain't changing and it isn't like Rogue One was any different. (If anything it was worse, with the bar-fight guys from ANH randomly wandering around.) ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 23:18 on Nov 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 23:08
|
|
|
into darkness is a blurry mess that has no clue what it wants to be or what it wants to say, like anything with benedict cumberbatch tfa is a lot better than that though it's not perfect by any means
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 23:10
|
|
|
the only good thing about into darkness is that it encourages you to watch wrath of khan
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
I enjoyed TFA, Rogue One and Into Darkness. It’s fun to watch stuff and not overanalyze it to death but I recognize the rights of those who choose to do so, despite feeling it is a joy-killing endeavor. Those are my thoughts. Thanks for reading.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
A New Hope was basically a remake of The Hidden Fortress anyway (with a bit of The Dam Busters chucked in at the end for variety) much as The Magnificent Seven was basically a remake of The Seven Samurai.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
sportsgenius86 posted:I enjoyed TFA, Rogue One and Into Darkness. It’s fun to watch stuff and not overanalyze it to death but I recognize the rights of those who choose to do so, despite feeling it is a joy-killing endeavor. I'm not saying it's wrong to enjoy what you enjoy. I just think they're poo poo, and when people hear you call the poo poo they like, poo poo, they get mad and start arguing semantics over said poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
Like how you got mad at jivjov for insisting it's not a remake?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 00:22
|
|
|
Arcsquad12 posted:Like how you got mad at jivjov for insisting it's not a remake? Precisely. No one is innocent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 00:31
|
|
|
Yeah, Into Darkness is in no way a "remake" outside of a couple of plot beats. Wrath of Khan is about revenge and how it will destroy you, about the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few, and about facing the unwinnable scenario (with a little bit of "I'm getting too old for this poo poo" thrown in for color). Into Darkness is about the militarization of what should be an exploration first group, about taking responsibility for those you are responsible for (both Kirk and Khan, who is fiercely loyal to his crew), and...okay, I couldn't think of a third thing like I could for Wrath of Khan, but those other two. But it's continuing the "things are getting bad since the timeline changed" plot of the first one, which obviously didn't come up at all in Wrath of Khan. That being said, Into Darkness is not as good as Star Trek '09, which may very well be my second favorite Star Trek movie.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 02:24
|
|
|
into darkness is about how bush did 9/11
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 02:33
|
|
|
People arguing whether Into Darkness was a remake of Wrath of Khan is kind of missing the point, Abrams was not involved in writing STID and he has no real interest in Star Trek at all. Whether it was or wasn't a remake of WOK doesn't really have anything to do with Abrams. Whereas he is a huge Star Wars fan and was one of the two writers of TFA. That being said, TFA is definitely a remake of ANH. I say this as someone who still thinks TFA was good (though not great).
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 03:21
|
|
|
Do we need to have the conversation on the difference between remake and reboot again?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 03:24
|
|
|
Being a semi-remake-ish of Ep4 (or really of the whole OT, since it had aspects of all three) may have been an intentional move to make Star Wars feel safe and familiar again after the prequel trilogy
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 03:26
|
|
|
Tumblr of scotch posted:Being a semi-remake-ish of Ep4 (or really of the whole OT, since it had aspects of all three) may have been an intentional move to make Star Wars feel safe and familiar again after the prequel trilogy That's the impression I've always gotten, though I would say it was still a considerable missed opportunity that they didn't make the characters and story more fleshed out and satisfying, given how much they blatantly recycled from the original trilogy, rather than leaving everything feeling so sketched out and basic. Of course, I really could have settled for them at least fleshing out the background stuff more, since that's ultimately my biggest gripe with The Force Awakens: it's so drat empty. And empty is the total opposite of what I feel Star Wars is all about. Really, the one thing I think Rogue One has that puts it above The Force Awakens for me, is how the world feels so dirty, crowded, old, and lived-in. It lends a real sense of authenticity and weight to everything that's going on, despite the story and characters really not being much, if any, better than TFA. Oh yeah, and the whole final battle scene. That was awesome.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 04:19
|
|
|
Arcsquad12 posted:Do we need to have the conversation on the difference between remake and reboot again? Can we also talk about how Episode VII is neither of those things?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 05:03
|
|
|
This isn't the CD thread. C'mon.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 05:24
|
|
|
okay change of topic in your opinion, who's the worst of luke's various eu girlfriends, other than akanah?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 05:53
|
|
|
Callista, hands down. Her arc sucks and then they brought her back and made her part of the Abeloth bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 06:01
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:okay change of topic I don't even remember her loving name but the one who was a ghost who shoved herself into the body of Luke's student.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 06:09
|
|
|
Yeah, Callista
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 06:24
|
|
|
Lumiya. She ended up developing Crazy Ex Syndrome and being the main cause of Luke losing his wife.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 08:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 15:33 |
|
|
Is Lumiya the one written by someone with a women-getting-limbs-amputated fetish?
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 08:37
|
|
