|
Lucas: "They died." It is fiction, so what "actually happened" isn't really a thing. Even if George Lucas had vague thoughts in his head about possible directions to take for sequels, those thoughts weren't put down to paper, nor subject to creative input from others, nor subject to the further creative influences of the very act of filming a script with various limitations to be overcome in creative ways, as well as input from actors.[1] The act of articulating your thoughts changes what your thoughts are; I didn't know precisely how this post would end when I began it. The text is separate from the author, and in this case there is no text. [1] E.g., is Han Solo's "I know" to Leia's "I love you" considered non-canon because it wasn't in George Lucas' script?
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2012 05:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 16:47 |
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Here is what Star Wars needs in order to be 'Star Wars' (in the sense of the original film): I think the truly dialectical reading of the film (in the Zizekian sense) would say that the space battles, the force, and laser swords, are all, in fact, not just the "stupid appearance," but integral to everything you list. I.e., you're offering the ingenious correction, but the dialectical move is to realize that the correction was always already there as part of the appearance. In short, it matters that the various themes you list are being negotiated or played with through the lens of a romance fantasy space battle coming-of-age story with quasi-mystical magic philosophy and laser swords etc etc etc. Just like it matters that in Alien the sex imagery is in the form of the radically "alien." Like, if you remove your Star Wars examples for each of the elements you list, you could probably find another film that has all those elements, especially some of the more general ones ("vaguely revolutionary but then also totally not"). And the answer is: no, that other film would not be Star Wars, even if this other film and Star Wars were both negotiating similar politics in similar ways. I guess my point is that the content is part of the form. Like, I agree the meat of a given film like Star Wards is in the form. But the selection of so-called content is basically a formal decision, really, so whatever. SuperMechagodzilla posted:Your direct equation of those two things is utterly bizarre to me. Absolutely, I think you could do this. I think it would be politically disgusting, but it could still be "Star Wars," insofar as any sequel isn't an extension of the original but a commentary or reading of the original. DirtyRobot fucked around with this message at 15:00 on Jan 30, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2013 14:57
|
|
|
Longbaugh01 posted:I'm still confused by what that means, and why it's important. Eh, material conditions affect the production of every text, but (generally) you still read the text you've got, not the one that might have happened. Authors, directors, poets, cinematographers, all adapt. Dickens wrote under tight deadlines and in a restrictive serial format that no doubt affected what he wrote. Milton had to deal with the fact that he was blind, and "wrote" Paradise Lost under dictation -- surely that affected that text at least slightly as well. Things like that affect the texts, but the texts remain open to reading as-is. Lots of films are great partly because of material constraints of some sort, which are less visible after the production, or where considered very early on, so no one knew about them (i.e., a director thought, "Hey, I'll do this," but five second later realized that was impossible. "Bummer, but I'll do this *genius things* instead."). The people behind films don't have to simply "overcome" material conditions, as if their goal is solely to produce the same movie despite the given material condition; rather they work with them, shape the text according to the options that are available to them. To take the idea further, even Shakespeare comes to us as a series of play scripts he wrote down which generally don't feature things that are impossible to put on stage, but maybe he really would've done something cool, since he was actually that type of guy who really might have (rather than a Aristotelian type Greek tragedy writer, who would've thought every play should take up no time except what you saw on stage, and should have nothing weird, like a film with no editing, as it were. Shakespeare loved playing with that.)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2013 23:18
|
|
|
jivjov posted:An excellent and well-formed refutation of his point. Your subtle nuance and well-phrased response really changed my opinion. Oh wait...you did none of that here. If you're gonna disagree with someone, you really should put some actual thought into it rather than just posting "no" like you're the only one here who can give factual responses and thus have no need to actually back them up.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2013 14:41
|
|
|
Cinnamon Bastard: Dinsey? Yeah, hey Disney? It's your cousin, Cinnamon Bastard! Y'know that new sound ya been lookin' for? Well listen to this! *points phone at TV playing The Hunger Games* Disney Exec: Hello...? Hello? What is that? I can't hear anything. How did you get this number?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2013 16:17
|
|
|
Those matte paintings are amazing. Bring back more matte paintings. The only matte paintings that I sometimes don't like are Star Trek tv series'. I dunno why. They seem kind of formulaic, almost, like it's because they're all pretty much supposed to be the same establishing shot, but of different alien worlds. I want to be like it's a loving painting, you can put the camera wherever want, jeez.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:A lot of the time they used the exact same establishing shot paintings again and again for different episodes. Yeah, that didn't help. Although I admit I like the payoff in DS9 where you have that painting of Cardassia and when Cardassia gets bombed or whatever in the final episodes those two guys that were always there, watching the tv, are shown as corpses.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
All scripts should be written as if it were just a really excited child trying to tell you as fast as he can the play-by-play of his new favourite movie he just got home from seeing with his parents.
DirtyRobot fucked around with this message at 18:08 on May 22, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 22, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
Lobok posted:It's too bad you mean Adam Driver because Jason Batemen as an exasperated, dry wit Jedi would be pretty great. Waiting for Disney to finally release the Special Edition where Ron Howard narrates. 
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Everything's exactly the same! Everything's completely different! Zizek, Less Than Nothing p. 483 posted:The New arises only from repetition … [C]hanges which concern only the actual aspect of things are only changes within the existing frame, not the emergence of something really New. The New only emerges when the virtual support of the actual changes, and this change occurs precisely in the guise of a repetition in which a thing remains the same in its actuality. In other words, things really change not when A transforms itself into B, but when, while A remains exactly the same with regard to its actual properties, it "totally changes” imperceptibly.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
quote:
korusan posted:
No, I don't think so at all, because after a huge galactic revolution there's gonna be some conflict picking up the pieces, and that conflict isn't only going to be bureaucratic bullshit. I mean, yeah, a lot of it would be, but that's not what you have to base the story on. There will be 1) chaos from the void in power that's been left, 2) remnants of the old regime, and 3) new, unseen powers (in this case, galactic evil ones) wanting to step up, and blah blah blah. edit: so, in other words, yeah, I think having Luke be imprisoned immediately after the OT is a bit lame and a bit of a bummer. A much harder to write, but much better way to frame the new trilogy, would be about the actual insane difficulty of living up to the ideal of the rebellion. Although all those plot points are probably fake and/or I have to agree it's all in the execution and most plot summaries sound dumb on paper. DirtyRobot fucked around with this message at 12:22 on Aug 16, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2014 12:14
|
|
|
I don't see why a lightsaber can't be a claymore and have a gun in it. It worked well in that old highlander TV show, right? http://youtu.be/FG84k0HPLPQ?t=40m2s
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
Cardboard Box A posted:1) Why do the X-Wings have such huge intakes feeding these itty bitty engines? It's just turned slightly since firing those shots. This is amazing.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:The grumpiness of an old man Han Force Ghost would be off the charts. Cancel all the other tv show ideas, folks.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2015 13:30
|
|
|
jivjov posted:When did fanfiction enter the equation? When this dude George Lucas made some fan fiction and called it "Star Wars"
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
Beeez posted:On the topic of the Jedi using clones, I don't think it's as simple as "they're totally cool with using slaves" in that instance. I think it's more that they are joining the war because they want to bring peace to the galaxy and find and destroy the Sith, the Republic has already decided on using the clone army, and by not needing conscripts they diminish the civilian deaths considerably. It's a choice that has no real right answer, perhaps, but I think it's easy to see the attractiveness of using an army whose only purpose is to fight and kill vs conscripting a bunch of people who have never known combat at all into service against a massive army of robots programmed for fighting. Kurzon posted:I wonder about the morality of using clone troopers who are genetically engineered to be obedient and self-sacrificing. If they are like this from birth, they're kinda like meaty droids. They never had free will so nothing was taken from them. If they were born with normal human emotions and free will but stripped of those post-birth, that would definitely be immoral. Beeez posted:I wasn't saying they weren't slaves, I was saying the reasons for using them aren't really the standard reasons people in the real world use slaves.  "Should we use people or the people whom we consider to be less than people? Phew, we saved the civilians and just used the people who have no rights." "It's okay, they don't really have free will. They're not like us. They're just not capable of that kind of thing. They've been bred that way. It's cool." "They enjoy this kind of work."
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 16:47 |
|
|
It's time to ask the tough ethical questions, like what do we have to do to get away with some good ol' exploitation without remorse?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2015 16:41
|
|