|
jivjov posted:I'm merely advocating it as an option, and a valid one at that. Its perfectly acceptable to enjoy a movie by way of looking at its superficial aspects. It is just as perfectly acceptable to deconstruct everything down to the lowest level. I understand that's what you are advocating, which is why I am criticizing it. There is no 'superficial level'. If someone doesn't get that the fictional robot is talking about, and being used to express, real philosophical and/or theological concerns, they are functionally illiterate. There's no academic stature involved. You don't need to make specific reference to the book of Job or anything. The robot is unambiguously ruminating on the nature and purpose of its existence. It is being philosophical. There's no other way to describe it.
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 03:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 21:35 |
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:I understand that's what you are advocating, which is why I am criticizing it. There is no 'superficial level'. If someone doesn't get that the fictional robot is talking about, and being used to express, real philosophical and/or theological concerns, they are functionally illiterate. Yes, there is a superficial level. Its what you see if you choose not to dig down to the deeper themes beneath. Just because you gain your enjoyment from a film by deconstructing it, other people can gain just as much enjoyment looking at the surface. Yes, I realize that this is a discussion board, for talking about the deeper themes and whatnot, but I personally feel that its intellectually dishonest to refuse to even admit the other viewpoint exists.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 03:34
|
|
|
The Star Wars prequels made smug internet nerds mad that mysticism and superstition was replaced with secular science, I think it deserves at least some modicum of admiration for that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 03:38
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Prequels are achronological sequels, and should pretty much never be viewed first. I've always thought this, but reading it suddenly made me think: why? Why 'should'? Where do you personally derive that 'should' from? Authorial intent (gasp)?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 04:04
|
|
|
jivjov posted:Yes, there is a superficial level. Its what you see if you choose not to dig down to the deeper themes beneath. Just because you gain your enjoyment from a film by deconstructing it, other people can gain just as much enjoyment looking at the surface. Yes, I realize that this is a discussion board, for talking about the deeper themes and whatnot, but I personally feel that its intellectually dishonest to refuse to even admit the other viewpoint exists. This idea of separate "levels" is the problem though. ...of SCIENCE! posted:The Star Wars prequels made smug internet nerds mad that mysticism and superstition was replaced with secular science, I think it deserves at least some modicum of admiration for that. Exactly! I can't write these movies off as "terrible" anymore, there is simply too many interesting things going on in (and around) them. Some day, someone is going to make a thread about the prequels not unlike the recent Transformers one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 04:15
|
|
|
Black Bones posted:Exactly! I can't write these movies off as "terrible" anymore, there is simply too many interesting things going on in (and around) them. Some day, someone is going to make a thread about the prequels not unlike the recent Transformers one. A terrible movie can still be packed full of interesting things.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 04:19
|
|
|
Popcorn posted:I've always thought this, but reading it suddenly made me think: why? Why 'should'? Well if they make more sense and are more effective as films when watched in the order they were released, which is (my paraphrase of) what Craptacular said, then you should probably watch them in the order they were released, right? At least you should if you want them to make more sense and be more effective as films. Does anyone have an example of a franchise that works better if you watch the prequel entries first? Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 04:30 on Feb 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 04:26
|
|
|
I learnt a while ago that the worst thing a movie can be is boring. I've seen so many completely "competent" (actors! scripts! special effects!) movies by now that made me frustrated with boredom, I eventually realised it would be completely dishonest to say they were actually better than the "bad" (amateurish acting! terrible editing! awful music!) movies I've seen that held my attention far more. Give me Left Behind over Amazing Spider-Man any day.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 04:27
|
|
|
Popcorn posted:I've always thought this, but reading it suddenly made me think: why? Why 'should'? A prequel is, technically, impossible, because it will always exist in a context wherein the original already exists. Star Wars IV-VI had already been made, had already been a cultural phenomenon, and had already left a deep impression on the viewers/creators/society. They're really more sequels that are set chronologically earlier within the film universe. The prequels quote and comment on the original trilogy, and, as I read it, cynically undercut the mystique and experience of the originals. The full impact of the Old Republic being incompetent, tedious, corrupt, and idiotic depends on the viewer seeing Obi Wan's fond remembrance of "a more civilized age" and Rebellion's uplifting aspirations to recreate the Old Republic. If you watch the prequels first, it sets a tone of cynicism through all six movies, while if you watch the originals first, the prequels are an attack on your viewing experience. Certainly, there's no absolute need to watch anything in its full context (and the scope of human society makes watching literally everything a movie is drawn from borderline impossible), but for your best understanding, if a movie quotes Star Wars:Return of the Jedi, it would be good to have already seen Return of the Jedi.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 04:31
|
|
|
VincentPrice posted:No he doesn't and his editing sucks too. When I said he had a way with words, I actually literally meant that he's interesting to listen to. Interviews with Lucas, especially ones about the industry in the 70s, are extremely entertaining.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 04:58
|
|
|
Popcorn posted:Where do you personally derive that 'should' from? Authorial intent (gasp)? There are exceptions that prove the rule, though. The prequels should absolutely be watched after the unaltered original films, but their relationship to the CG-defaced special editions is more ambiguous. Like I said, the special editions and prequels are part of the same satirical project of trapping the films in an eternal present of constant updates, supposedly increasing their fidelity to an original vision that never existed. (Their status as copies of an original that never existed is part of the satire of hyperreal blockbuster cinema.) Watching the prequels before the special editions doesn't hurt much - but both should be watched after the original(s).
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 06:31
|
|
|
Waiting for the next special edition to be released, which changes the opening crawl to ' Episode IV- gently caress you!' and an image of Goatse.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 06:40
|
|
|
TOOT BOOT posted:Waiting for the next special edition to be released, which changes the opening crawl to ' Episode IV- gently caress you!' and an image of Goatse. In all seriousness, the fact that Disney now owns the IP makes me rather confident we will at some point get the original versions on Blu-ray - or, even better, a Blu-ray where you could pick and choose which of the various changes from the different versions of each film you'd like, which could then be implemented in all possible combinations using seamless branching.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 07:28
|
|
|
BreakAtmo posted:In all seriousness, the fact that Disney now owns the IP makes me rather confident we will at some point get the original versions on Blu-ray - or, even better, a Blu-ray where you could pick and choose which of the various changes from the different versions of each film you'd like, which could then be implemented in all possible combinations using seamless branching. In other words, allowing the viewer to be their own final authority on what constitutes the "ultimate director's cut"? I like it. You could make an entire forum just for people arguing about why their version of Brazil or Blade Runner is the right version.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 08:49
|
|
|
BreakAtmo posted:or, even better, a Blu-ray where you could pick and choose which of the various changes from the different versions of each film you'd like, which could then be implemented in all possible combinations using seamless branching. poo poo, there's plenty of other movies out there that I'd love to see that "feature" applied to, movies where they have deleted scenes or multiple versions and my personal "ideal" version is somewhere in the middle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 09:25
|
|
|
TOOT BOOT posted:Waiting for the next special edition to be released, which changes the opening crawl to ' Episode IV- gently caress you!' and an image of Goatse. Although that's the general idea, its a bit too punk. The point of the Special Editions is to gradually modify everything with digital 'enhancements.' The endgame, if there is one, would be to fully erase the line between live-action and animation, cease being cinema altogether, and replace every scene with a sequence of realtime, navigable, CG dioramas. Choose your own angle! This idea of a Choose-Your-Own-Cut is alluring, but dangerously close to this very hellish concept that the prequels forewarn/exemplify. You better believe fans will just minimize the JarJar in a misguided effort to remove Phantom Menace's de facto protagonist - obscuring the symptoms while bolstering the disease. There's this persistent, scary idea that the prequels are 'salvageable' which always amounts to a tacit defense of the liberal democracy being ruthlessly satirized. Make Amidala look more appealing, make Yoda look smarter, make the Jedi appear more competent... so that it ultimately becomes the story of a bunch of flawless liberal do-gooders overcome by bad luck and a single evil man named George W. Hitler. That's how thoroughly fans miss the point of all the films. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 10:36 on Feb 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 10:34
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Although that's the general idea, its a bit too punk. The point of the Special Editions is to gradually modify everything with digital 'enhancements.' The endgame, if there is one, would be to fully erase the line between live-action and animation, cease being cinema altogether, and replace every scene with a sequence of realtime, navigable, CG dioramas. Choose your own angle! Here's how thoroughly you miss the point of all things: very.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 10:45
|
|
|
The prequel trilogy is an interesting failure, in that they are significantly less entertaining than their predecessors in (what I pompously assume to be) a reasonably intuitive, common, literal viewing, aware of but not preoccupied with subtext. I sometimes like to think about the themes of the entire series as if the prequels had succeeded: if its characters were more defined and likeable, if the script had been clearer and less dull, if the direction given the actors had been as energetic as that given the animation, if it had made the dramatic irony a bit more obvious (if a viewer's first impression is that the story is wrong, not the character, then it is possible the story itself is at fault), if it had just come together better. I'm not certain if these completely imaginary movies would be easier or harder to interpret as a refutation of the original trilogy, but in my imagination they are more like the originals in that I like watching them more than I like interpreting them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 11:54
|
|
|
Koosed Up posted:Here's how thoroughly you miss the point of all things: very. Immerse yourself in the knowledge of all things
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 13:19
|
|
|
scary ghost dog posted:Immerse yourself in the knowledge of all things You fool, I thought Penismightier told us to ignore Koos!
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 13:27
|
|
|
Black Bones posted:I gotta disagree with you here. Not so much that the prequels are good, because I'm not quite ready to argue that (although this thread and the last StarWars one have got me thinking I need to watch them again and put my nerd-baggage aside), but they are not terrible either. Have you seen the infamous prequel reviews? They're amazing at picking apart how shoddily and carelessly the prequels are put together. A previous poster said that a movie's worst offense is being boring and I'd mostly agree, but I think carelessness is a worse offense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 16:46
|
|
|
Jar Jar stepping on the poo poo is a metaphor, the poop symbolises the trust of the audience and Jar Jar is Lucas
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 21:02
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Prequels are achronological sequels, and should pretty much never be viewed first. I really hate this trend (is it a trend? or did people always do this?) of encouraging people to watch or read things in their fictional universes chronological order instead of the order of creation. The prequels were designed to be watched after the original trilogy. What little works in them works a lot better if you know who Anakin grows into and that Palpitine and the Sith in the dark robes are the same dude. It also helps explain Ewan McGregor's performance. Harper Collins started putting out box sets with The Chronicles of Narnia in chronological order too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 22:10
|
|
|
Every time the original trilogy is re-released it has new changes and "updates", is the same true for the prequel trilogy? Like are the prequel Blu-Rays substantially different from what was seen in theaters?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 22:38
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:Every time the original trilogy is re-released it has new changes and "updates", is the same true for the prequel trilogy? Like are the prequel Blu-Rays substantially different from what was seen in theaters? I know the only major change in Revenge of the Sith is one screen transition is changed to a wipe for the home release. Other than that, I don't think there's been any major revisions like the OT received.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 22:43
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:Every time the original trilogy is re-released it has new changes and "updates", is the same true for the prequel trilogy? Like are the prequel Blu-Rays substantially different from what was seen in theaters? The podracing in Episode 1 had a bunch added to it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 22:47
|
|
|
I'm ashamed that I know this, but in Episode II when Jango gets up after being trampled by that horned-bull thing, (Reek?) they added more sparks coming off his jetpack. In the commentary on the dvd Lucas is surprised to see it already on there, after just asking about adding it in a few days before.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 23:18
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:I really hate this trend (is it a trend? or did people always do this?) of encouraging people to watch or read things in their fictional universes chronological order instead of the order of creation. The prequels were designed to be watched after the original trilogy. What little works in them works a lot better if you know who Anakin grows into and that Palpitine and the Sith in the dark robes are the same dude. It also helps explain Ewan McGregor's performance. Harper Collins started putting out box sets with The Chronicles of Narnia in chronological order too. To be fair to Narnia wasn't The Magician's Nephew the only one released out of order chronologically?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 23:28
|
|
|
Didn't Yoda change from a puppet to CGI in the Bluray release? Fake edit: Yeah, there were a few minor changes on the DVD releases and a few more on the Bluray. Wikipedia predictably has a remarkably detailed list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_changes_in_Star_Wars_re-releases
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 23:29
|
|
|
Spalec posted:Didn't Yoda change from a puppet to CGI in the Bluray release? DVDActive has a nice list with pictures.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2013 01:41
|
|
|
computer parts posted:To be fair to Narnia wasn't The Magician's Nephew the only one released out of order chronologically? No, the entire publication order is different than the chronological order. They only thing they share in common is that they end with The Last Battle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2013 03:06
|
|
|
The first four books released were in chronological order. The Horse and His Boy and The Magican's Nephew, both released after Silver Chair, were the only two out of order.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2013 04:08
|
|
|
computer parts posted:To be fair to Narnia wasn't The Magician's Nephew the only one released out of order chronologically? Nope. If publication order is 1234567, then chronological is 6,1,5,2,3,4,7. And since 6 is basically the world creation story, it'd be a little like recommending reading The Silmarillion before reading The Hobbit. Hot Sexy Jupiter posted:The first four books released were in chronological order. The Horse and His Boy and The Magican's Nephew, both released after Silver Chair, were the only two out of order. Those two also don't work very well without having read the other books, especially The Magician's Nephew.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2013 05:25
|
|
|
Re: publication vs internal chronology Sometimes you don't know any better, which is the most infuriating state of all I was given a box set of of the Narnia books as a kid, and it had Magician's Nephew first, Horse and His Boy third, etc, and that's the way I grew up reading them. In the event of "revisionist history" (be it book numbering or Special Edition films) I feel that the people responsible for the works should notate the changes plainly. Put a foreword stating "this is the first book chronologically but the next to last published". Use branching media technology to give viewers the option of watching a film as it was as well as how it is now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2013 05:34
|
|
jivjov posted:Re: publication vs internal chronology Holy poo poo, I think I had the same box set as a kid. 
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2013 06:02
|
|
|
jivjov posted:Re: publication vs internal chronology I think publisher's shouldn't do stupid poo poo like put them in the wrong order to begin with. It's not a huge deal, just an annoyance. Because if part of a series doesn't work at all without context it's not a complete work and a failure in it's own right. The only exception I can think of is serialized tv shows, but they always have a "previously on" if it's important. As for branching, gently caress that, if I want to make that many choices I'd play a video game. Give me a curated experience, film editor's are paid for their time, I'm not paying a studio for the privilege of working to make their movie watchable. It's annoying enough figuring out which version of Blade Runner to watch, having to do that for every loving movie would be horrible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2013 06:07
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:As for branching, gently caress that, if I want to make that many choices I'd play a video game. Give me a curated experience, film editor's are paid for their time, I'm not paying a studio for the privilege of working to make their movie watchable. It's annoying enough figuring out which version of Blade Runner to watch, having to do that for every loving movie would be horrible. Have whatever the editors determine is the "proper" way to watch the film (I.e. the original, or perhaps the original with actual errors corrected but no substantial content changes) be the default that happens if you put the disc in and press play. Have other versions be accessible through the options menu. That way if you don't want to faff about with branching experiences you don't have to, but they're there for people who prefer a different version or want to see all the different permutations of a film.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2013 13:44
|
|
|
I think all of the cuts in Star Wars should be randomized and shuffled so you never see two chronological cuts in a row.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2013 14:16
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:As for branching, gently caress that, if I want to make that many choices I'd play a video game. Give me a curated experience, film editor's are paid for their time, I'm not paying a studio for the privilege of working to make their movie watchable. It's annoying enough figuring out which version of Blade Runner to watch, having to do that for every loving movie would be horrible. It's not all about you, dude. Different people have different opinions on what they liked from the 4 or so different editions of the original trilogy. Why should people who enjoy certain changes but hate others be forced to watch what they hate when the technology can remove that limitation? Because you can't be bothered checking a few boxes in a menu? That said, I agree that having to go through that menu every single time you wanted to watch one of the movies would be a pain in the rear end, which is the situation George has put us in. Hopefully, players would be capable of permanently remembering the choices you made, so unless you wanted to screw around with the feature and watch a bunch of different versions, you would only need to go through the menu once (unless you got a new player). Also, there would likely be a default version the editors could make based on fan polls or something, further reducing the number of people who would need to use the menu at all. But hey, if that's just too much trouble for you, you'd still be free to just use the existing Blu-rays. Enjoy the Ghost of Christensen Past and the 'NOOOOOOOO' when Vader kills the Emperor, because that's the only 1080p option you have at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2013 15:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 21:35 |
|
|
Wouldn't doing the 'choose your own cut' thing actually be an innovative sort of thing? I mean you'd sort of be making a meta-film. We're brushing against this already with Extended Editions but those seem to be natural outgrowths of director's cuts which we've had for a while. If we got to a point where you could in fact literally alter the film itself by checking various boxes, perhaps even creating entirely different experiences and making the home viewing format fundamentally different and over from the cinema viewing experience, that also brings a certain degree of implicit agency into the film - you're CHOOSING to create this reality in which there isn't X, or Y. Erasing natives, perhaps.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2013 15:40
|
|
