|
The main issue with Star Wars Ring Theory is if, best case scenario, Lucas really did write the movies with this incredibly intricate parallelism... I still don't give a crap because the characters and directing are absolutely lifeless.
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 21:59 |
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:The original post for Darth Binks made the claim that it was probably something Lucas originally planned, but then backed away from after the Phantom Menace because making such a universally hated character a major focus of the next movies would have been a disaster. If anybody is making the claim that Jar Jar is the evil mastermind behind the prequels as they actually exist then that's pretty laughable. I actually think this is plausible, but is most likely not true. In any case, as you say it's certainly not true in the prequel canon as it exists.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 23:06
|
|
|
Darth Binks is obviously not an accurate theory, but pretending its true makes the prequels more watchable.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 23:13
|
|
|
Sir Lemming posted:The main issue with Star Wars Ring Theory is if, best case scenario, Lucas really did write the movies with this incredibly intricate parallelism... I still don't give a crap because the characters and directing are absolutely lifeless. The kinds of people who swallow Ring Theory are also the kind of people who go "So what if the plot is erratic, the characters are dull and the performances make cardboard look animated? It's faaaaahscinating" as they buff their pipes on their tweed elbow patches.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:Darth Binks is obviously not an accurate theory, but pretending its true makes the prequels more watchable. It really doesn't.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 23:19
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:Darth Binks is obviously not an accurate theory, but pretending its true makes the prequels more watchable. This right here is the pain of fandom. Movies probably should not be watched more than once if you don't like the movie. But it's Star Wars so when you watch Star Wars, you are going to watch all of it, and you need to come up with weird theories to make them tolerable. This is why some of us (me) are far more tolerant of stuff like Star Trek V than we really should be. These are things that should be thrown away, but because they are a part of the larger whole of the thing we love, we just kind treat them like a family member we know nobody likes and apologize for their presence but never do anything about it. Godfather 3 has been seen far more times than it deserves as well. remusclaw fucked around with this message at 23:30 on May 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
dont even fink about it posted:George is often made fun of for claiming this, since stuff like Boba Fett becoming a Mary Sue and having that leak into II and III was obviously never the original intent. But I dunno, it's pretty obvious he had at least a nascent plan for three prequels in 1977? It's not necessary or even good to have those perfectly planned out decades ahead of time. This is not correct. He started using "Episode: X" when writing Empire (Star Wars being called "A New Hope" came along with the rerelease in the 80's) and initially it was Episode 2, not 5. The idea of the backstory came with the change, with Empire, that Darth Vader was Luke's father - or at least the broad strokes. Obi Wan teaches Anakin, Anakin goes evil because the Emp is a Sith Lord, Obi Wan and Anakin fight in a volcano and he gets all machiney, Anakin hunts down the jedi.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
He might have come up with some big idea for a whole saga when he learned he could make two more movies. But Star Wars was just Star Wars and there was no big plot in 1977.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Why was the finale of HIMYM bad? I stopped watching around season 5. They stuck with the ending that they'd filmed with the kids back in season one (since the kid actors are now like 30 years old) and it was the mother died a while ago and this is Ted's roundabout way of asking if it's okay with them if he dates Robin. Which would have worked in season one or two but really didn't any more. On the DVDs they actually include an alternative last five minutes which cuts all that out and just ends with a speech wrapping up all the life lessons over a montage and him meeting the mother, and it's absolutely the proper ending to the show.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 23:30
|
|
|
remusclaw posted:Godfather 3 has been seen far more times than it deserves as well. The thing is Godfather 3 absolutely deserves to be watched several times, but every time after the first needs to be with the commentary on. Francis Ford Coppola's borderline delusional tirades about how it's actually good are fascinating. His analysis of the ending is such that you wonder if the poignant finality of 2's last shot was an accident. It very nearly makes the film work as you get to watch decent cinematography together with these just incredibly misguided takes. That said I might be conforming to your theory with this.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
SomeMathGuy posted:The thing is Godfather 3 absolutely deserves to be watched several times, but every time after the first needs to be with the commentary on. Francis Ford Coppola's borderline delusional tirades about how it's actually good are fascinating. His analysis of the ending is such that you wonder if the poignant finality of 2's last shot was an accident. It very nearly makes the film work as you get to watch decent cinematography together with these just incredibly misguided takes. That said I might be conforming to your theory with this. Commentary is generally more than enough to get me to watch something I didn't like again. Then again, I'm not an exception to my little theory.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
The best part of the prequels is Christopher Lee is in 2 of them and he makes everything better. The Apollo episode of TOS is great fun.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
I'm much more of a Star Wars fan than a Star Trek one. I don't think the prequels are the best movies ever, but I've seen far, far, far worse. The only things that gets me about them are that there are good movies desperately trapped inside them and that people are incredible unfair to certain aspects. Like the people that say The Phantom Menace is like watching C-SPAN. There's like three total minutes of Senate session in it and its all relevant to the plot! In the parallel universe better version of that movie, the vote of no confidence would have been the climax of the whole movie.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
Sash! posted:I'm much more of a Star Wars fan than a Star Trek one. I don't think the prequels are the best movies ever, but I've seen far, far, far worse. The only things that gets me about them are that there are good movies desperately trapped inside them and that people are incredible unfair to certain aspects. Like the people that say The Phantom Menace is like watching C-SPAN. There's like three total minutes of Senate session in it and its all relevant to the plot! In the parallel universe better version of that movie, the vote of no confidence would have been the climax of the whole movie. Yeah I'd watch a version with much more (better) Senate drama. Other people will be sad when there are no laser swords or explosions on screen and always be asking "where's Poochy?"
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 00:24
|
|
|
Railing Kill posted:The Ring Theory tries to prove that the prequels deliberately mirror the original trilogy in a particularly cyclical - and forced - way. For every one piece of "evidence" for it, there's three holes in the theory that the author(s) ignore. Basically, it's SW fans giving George way too much credit in an effort to salvage those piles of poo poo. To put it lightly, it's a stretch, and it isn't even funny or weird like Darth Binks. It's dead serious. The whole thing is here: http://www.starwarsringtheory.com/ and it's definitely an interesting read if you're familiar with all six movies. Some of the parallels are obvious and well-known, but there are a few "I never noticed that but I bet it was intentional" bits (or at least there were for me), and there's a WHOLE lot of stuff that reminds me of those lists of amazing parallels that happen when you listen to Dark Side of the Moon while watching The Wizard of Oz.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 02:11
|
|
|
Powered Descent posted:The whole thing is here: http://www.starwarsringtheory.com/ and it's definitely an interesting read if you're familiar with all six movies. Some of the parallels are obvious and well-known, but there are a few "I never noticed that but I bet it was intentional" bits (or at least there were for me), and there's a WHOLE lot of stuff that reminds me of those lists of amazing parallels that happen when you listen to Dark Side of the Moon while watching The Wizard of Oz. "Of course people regard Phantom Menace as a piece of poo poo, but wait--do you realize it has themes?!? Makes you think." Discussing that The Phantom Menace is thematically about symbiosis is not deep--Lucas mentions this quite off-handedly in the commentary track--nor is the obvious shot composition. It would be far more remarkable if The Phantom Menace was not composed and laid out like other Star Wars films. I could take all this in stride, except for this essay, as is common, tacitly concluding that everyone who doesn't like these movies is dumb and ignorant and needs to just appreciate film more. quote:I'm much more of a Star Wars fan than a Star Trek one. I don't think the prequels are the best movies ever, but I've seen far, far, far worse. The only things that gets me about them are that there are good movies desperately trapped inside them and that people are incredible unfair to certain aspects. Like the people that say The Phantom Menace is like watching C-SPAN. There's like three total minutes of Senate session in it and its all relevant to the plot! In the parallel universe better version of that movie, the vote of no confidence would have been the climax of the whole movie. The parts of TPM that drag really drag, and they mostly drag because Lucas had too much faith in Jar Jar's workability as a character and made a really bad casting pick with Jake Lloyd. remusclaw posted:This right here is the pain of fandom. I dunno, I have had movie experiences where I liked it more the more I watched it and/or the older I got--Watchmen, Starship Troopers, and parts of Star Trek: TMP come to mind. Star Trek IV is better when you watch it as an adult, because as a kid you're unlikely to "get" the culture jokes. And there are little nuggets of value even in franchise movies that are otherwise total misfires. Name Change fucked around with this message at 03:13 on May 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 03:08
|
|
|
Also worth noting: There is as far as I know no significant part of the Star Trek fandom that fights to get people to like or even accept the generally-agreed Bad Star Trek Movies, which rather puts the lie to "You just don't like [bad movie] because you didn't watch it 2,000 times as a child!" There are people who like those Trek movies more than others do, but they don't masquerade the facile as the elaborate in an attempt to sway others with basic film theory. Any worship of Star Trek really starts and ends at Gene Roddenberry and Leonard Nimoy, and in the case of Gene is not so prevalent these days. There could be a lot of reasons for this--I'm guessing that Star Trek fandom skews over many more age ranges and backgrounds. Star Wars has a lot more in common with the platonic Best Ever D&D Campaign than any run of Star Trek does. Now, what I'm counting on is for someone to immediately post the website for the "All the Star Treks are Great" cult.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 03:44
|
|
|
remusclaw posted:This right here is the pain of fandom. Nope, you done hosed up here. I just literally don't watch the prequels, why is this a hard thing to do? People keep trying to invent weird orders that would somehow make it better, like if you go 1 2 4 5 3 6 suddenly 3 of the movies get better. No, just watch the original trilogy, it's easy!
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 03:45
|
|
|
dont even fink about it posted:Any worship of Star Trek really starts and ends at Gene Roddenberry and Leonard Nimoy, and in the case of Gene is not so prevalent these days. Anyone who doesn't agree about Nimoy is a loving heathen, though, we do all concur on that.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 03:46
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Nope, you done hosed up here. In my experience the folks who recommend strange viewing orders tend to have a more positive opinion of the prequels or at least feel like they ought to watch them anyway. I'm with you, though, nuts to ever rewatching those wrecks again.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 03:48
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Did the new star trek come out yet lol Baronjutter posted:The best part of DS9 are the characters and how they grow and interact with each other which is why even bad episodes are good to watch because some of the best little character defining interactions are sometimes stuck into a poo poo episode. As someone who's watching through for the first time since it aired, this is so true. It's always true in my experience. Skipping parts of shows robs you of the full experience, and if you feel like you have to skip some to get to "the good parts" then why are you even wasting your time. I can understand it though, a little, if you've seen it like 6 times and you already have all the context. Anyway that brings this up: Trip report: DS9 Season 1, episode 13 "The Storyteller" Throw the Crystalline Entity in together with Zek's plan in "The Nagus" and you've basically got the Bajor side of this episode. O'Brien's discomfort is kind of entertaining but the rest of this was really just... there. Trip report: DS9 Season 1, episode 14 "Progress" This was a good Kira episode. The old guy was fantastic, I got a slightly softer Don Rickles feel from him. This one again ended really abruptly though, something I've noticed a few times already. Jake and Nog - although Nog really needs to tone down the acting by about 70% when he's excited - come across a lot better than, for example, Wesley Crusher.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 04:00
|
|
|
turn left hillary!! noo posted:Nog really needs to tone down the acting by about 70% when he's excited Nah. Maybe if he was playing a human character, but nah
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 04:03
|
|
|
dont even fink about it posted:Also worth noting: There is as far as I know no significant part of the Star Trek fandom that fights to get people to like or even accept the generally-agreed Bad Star Trek Movies, which rather puts the lie to "You just don't like [bad movie] because you didn't watch it 2,000 times as a child!" There are people who like those Trek movies more than others do, but they don't masquerade the facile as the elaborate in an attempt to sway others with basic film theory. Any worship of Star Trek really starts and ends at Gene Roddenberry and Leonard Nimoy, and in the case of Gene is not so prevalent these days. I don't think the Trek movie haters are anywhere near as vehement about it as prequel haters, though. It's like, when I mention in here that I like Final Frontier, several people agree with me, and the ones who don't are like, not my cup of tea but whatever, go like your bad movie. But people frequently very aggressively enter the Star Wars thread in Cinema Discusso to express their disgust for the prequels, and explain to all of us who enjoy them that we should not, at all, and why. I will say, overall, the visceral experience of watching them is not as fun, but there is a lot in them of value even if the surface level is all you care about. It comes down to "bad movie" vs. "movie I didn't like," and those can be two very different things. The Bloop posted:Nah. I guess. It does seem to be a Ferengi thing. Let's call it 30% then. Winifred Madgers fucked around with this message at 04:23 on May 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 04:15
|
|
|
Les Moonves is back to saying Discovery is on for early fall. quote:We have Star Trek [Discovery] coming in the beginning of the fall. It’s going extremely well. Maybe his earlier comments refusing to commit to fall were under the assumption the writer's strike would actually happen. Hahaha, nah, it's because Discovery is a massive disaster.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 04:41
|
|
|
It's called "Discovery" because the producers and writers just recently discovered what loving morons they were to begin with. Airing it exclusively on CBS All Access is also another way to guarantee that it's pirated to high heaven and that wet turd of a service will never get off the ground like they want it to.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 04:53
|
|
|
CBS Executive #1: "Hey everybody, i've got an idea. What about a new Star Trek show?" CBS Executive #2: "Yeah! People still remember Star Trek, don't they?" CBS Executive #1: "I think so. And here's an even better idea: Let's not put it on any TV channel. Let's not even put it on a well known streaming service like Netflix, Amazon or Hulu. Instead, let's stream it to people's Palm Pilots, Blackberries and pocket pagers. You can even watch the show live at various ATM's around the country!" CBS Executive #2: "Holy poo poo there's no way this plan can fail!" CBS Executive #1: *slumps down in chair with eyes open after having a massive cerebral aneurysm* CBS Executive #2: "I can't wait to watch this on my N-GAGE."
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 04:57
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Archer is dumb, that's why I'm puzzled as to why the humans at that point do not have a solid first contact protocol or guidelines on what to do with primitives. First contact with the Vulcans was a hundred years ago and nobody sat down to think about what to do if we find any more aliens? They already had some vessels going around already and even colonies, why did they wait for the first fast ship to worry about this and leave it to that captain to just wing it?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 05:12
|
|
|
Gonz posted:CBS Executive #1: "Hey everybody, i've got an idea. What about a new Star Trek show?" Star Trek: Discovery - Watch it this
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 05:20
|
|
|
skooma512 posted:I'm puzzled as to why the humans at that point do not have a solid first contact protocol or guidelines on what to do with primitives. First contact with the Vulcans was a hundred years ago and nobody sat down to think about what to do if we find any more aliens? They already had some vessels going around already and even colonies, why did they wait for the first fast ship to worry about this and leave it to that captain to just wing it? Presumably, the Vulcans tried to give humans advice on how to handle first contact and interactions with other species, but humanity was all "gently caress YOU DAD! I can run my own life!"
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 05:41
|
|
|
I imagine that the Vulcans had introduced humans to every race we'd met up until then; after all, they were spread throughout all of humanity's reach. Enterprise was the first chance we had to meet them ourselves.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 05:56
|
|
|
How much responsibily did Lucas have in making Indiana Jones? I could take or leave the Star Wars franchise but the Indiana Jones trilogy is one of my favourites.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 06:13
|
|
|
Angry Salami posted:Presumably, the Vulcans tried to give humans advice on how to handle first contact and interactions with other species, but humanity was all "gently caress YOU DAD! I can run my own life!"
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 06:15
|
|
|
Firebert posted:How much responsibily did Lucas have in making Indiana Jones? I could take or leave the Star Wars franchise but the Indiana Jones trilogy is one of my favourites. A lot. He first thought of doing the movies in the early 70's, then brainstormed with Philip Kaufman to complete the initial story for Raiders. He also convinced Spielberg to direct (he was hesitant at committing to a trilogy), and convinced Spielberg to make Jones more of an academic adventurer (Spielberg wanted him to be a Bond-esque playboy with a Bogart drinking problem). In terms of credited contributions, Lucas co-wrote the story treatment for Raiders with Kaufman, wrote the story for Temple, co-wrote the story for Crusade with Menno Meyjes, and co-wrote the story for Crystal Skull with Jeff Nathanson. He also created and developed the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles TV show. He's slated to produce Indy 5. I'm not as familiar with the production history of Indiana Jones as I am with Star Wars, but this book is a pretty good source.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 06:26
|
|
|
Big Mean Jerk posted:Star Trek: Discovery - Watch it this Fixed; you forgot it was originally slated for January.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 06:47
|
|
|
Burning_Monk posted:I really like THX 1138. I did too until Lucas hosed with it for the DVD release, so now we get a CGI machine jacking off Robert Duvall, and obviously fake CGI added to the climactic car chase. Is there an "original" version out yet? Number_6 fucked around with this message at 06:59 on May 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 06:53
|
|
|
They made some idiot the captain of the first warp 5 ship because his daddy designed it, I think it's safe to say that Starfleet did not exactly have a good plan for pretty much everything. Compare it to the evil mirror Starfleet that successfully conquered everyone: they put a guy with actual experience in charge.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 07:13
|
|
|
turn left hillary!! noo posted:Anyway that brings this up: Trip report: DS9 Season 1, episode 13 "The Storyteller" Oh man I can't wait until you get to "Duet"
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 07:16
|
|
|
I'm awfully sad about Fuller getting kicked from Discovery... but it is probably gonna be a disaster in spite of itself. Probably better for him to concentrate on future seasons of American Gods and god willing a Hannibal mini series or Season 4.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 08:59
|
|
|
dont even fink about it posted:There could be a lot of reasons for this--I'm guessing that Star Trek fandom skews over many more age ranges and backgrounds. Star Wars has a lot more in common with the platonic Best Ever D&D Campaign than any run of Star Trek does. I think the difference is the Star Wars prequels were a much bigger deal. It had been almost 2 decades since any new Star Wars movie, there was no TV show to fill the gap, and the ORIGINAL CREATOR was involved. (More heavily than ever, in fact.) And then it was another 10+ years before they made another movie. The only Star Trek movie that had remotely similar circumstances was the first one. After that, the franchise basically took a normal course, putting out movies every few years, along with multiple TV series. If you didn't like one, another one came along soon enough. The stakes in loving or hating one Trek movie were never nearly as high. Also, aside from the very loose "trilogy" of 2-4, there isn't really a set of Trek movies that has to be taken as a whole piece, with one creator's intent driving all of them. So it's a lot easier to defend one and dismiss another.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 14:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 21:59 |
|
|
CaveGrinch posted:I'm awfully sad about Fuller getting kicked from Discovery... but it is probably gonna be a disaster in spite of itself. Probably better for him to concentrate on future seasons of American Gods and god willing a Hannibal mini series or Season 4.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 14:36
|
|
