|
The "Chessmaster" type of villain (which was attempted with Palpatine in the prequels, I guess, but, yeah...) would be well served for Star Wars films, but there's no reason to actually use Thrawn and be tied to the books at all when you could just make something new.
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2013 19:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 16:42 |
|
|
McDowell posted:Ah true I forgot about that (I know, right?) But that could have been done as something other than telekinesis. If the light side gives you some mind control, the dark side could give you lung control. It was pretty much always ki/chi/qi, even from the first. Especially with the samurai/old master framing. Lucas was pretty much otakuing it up and then renamed some stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2013 21:52
|
|
|
I can't stand anything EU in Star Wars, including the Gendy shorts, and I even liked some Clone Wars eps I came across. Some of the standalone Clone Wars episodes/arcs are pretty much how a well directed offshoot of the main films by different directors -should- be.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2013 18:25
|
|
|
Part of what made Star Wars good was that its good/evil was basically pulled straight from Asian samurai/martial arts films and just updated with a fantasy feel. If you go the same route with it, and use the 2000s era Asian cinema as a basis, the bad guy becomes, I dunno, a gang leader that oppresses the poor and the hero is a complete loser who discovers a secret goodness inside of him that allows him to overcome the gang leader, I guess. I dunno. Or you could go back to the 90s and make it a heroic bloodshed movie with Jedi.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2013 14:42
|
|
|
The MSJ posted:You mean the villain will be a Hutt? With a lightsaber.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2013 18:28
|
|
|
computer parts posted:850 isn't that far off from 900 years. In the prequels, there is another... 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2013 04:39
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:Speaking of Yoda, where did the "Jedi Masters don't use lightsabers", with corresponding nerd rage, come from? Yoda fighting is terrible. It's "nerds" and "Star Wars fans" that liked him having one; it was more like film fans in general that stated it was missing the point (from what I remember of theforce.net's arguments after Episode 2). The point of Yoda/Palpatine was that they are so far beyond a Jedi Knight in usage of the Force that something as piddly as using a lightsaber is pointless to them. While Obi Wan trained Luke in using a saber, super wise Master Yoda trained him completely without one, and actually TOLD him to leave his weapons behind for a scene (which imprints the thought that reliance on weapons is weaksauce). Then Yoda relatively casually lifts an entire X-Wing out with one hand. The Emperor grabs Luke's lightsaber like it's a silly toy and remarks on it being like a tool of someone beneath him. The whole Yoda/Emperor idea is drawn from things like Eastern martial arts films in which the wise old masters put for NO effort at all to defeat people. In Drunken Master 1, for instance, Jackie Chan's old master beats him effortlessly barely moving (and Yoda's appearance is very much like an old master from Snake in Eagle's Shadow or Drunken Master). To have the old sage fighting like he's on speed defeats the entire point - that he has mastered beyond all that. Or, in RPG terms, you don't give a sage a sword.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2013 19:32
|
|
|
MisterBibs: Tone establishment by implication. You also probably don't have a problem with Dooku one-handedly using force lightning and Obi-Wan deflecting it with a lightsaber, either, right? All of these things are because Lucas saw the OT pretty much like you did (which is why the PT fails so horribly in the details). He doesn't understand undercurrent, theme, visual storytelling and establishing character mood/development/feel via what the DON'T do. He just understands exposition (which is why he's a decent base story man). edit: I mean, gently caress, "Yoda jumps around with a lightsaber" is the exact same issue as "Han shoots first." Lucas just plain doesn't understand how character actions influence perception of characters, or why some characters have a certain strength about themselves. Darko fucked around with this message at 06:09 on Feb 25, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2013 21:44
|
|
|
StickyNavels posted:I always liked the heavy physics involved in the OT. The dance-like choreography in the prequels looked pretty, but that poo poo didn't hold a candle to the lovely sense of gravity and weight in Luke and Vader's clashes. The way I explain the problem with the prequel-fighting is actually simple. It's not necessarily that it is more acrobatic or choreographed. Some of those things were even attempted in the (fantastic) Luke vs. Vader 1 fight on Luke's end. It's simply the lack of staging and contrast. The simplified way of (visually) showing this is to point out the fact that the climactic fight in Jedi is red vs. green sabers. The climactic fight in RotS is blue vs. blue sabers. Why is the latter more visually interesting? How much do you draw from saber color as to character from the former fight, as opposed to the latter?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2013 15:42
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Why would he want to be convinced of that? Why is it important that he be convinced of that? He dismissed the complaints as "nerd bitching" and then likes the prequel fights because they look good/are entertaining/whatever. Are you saying the complaints, as explained, don't portray reasonable reasons why someone can dislike the big change of characterization in the prequels (especially given that we know the reason for the character changes are that Lucas literally does not understand Empire Strikes Back as evidenced by Luke's AAAAAAUUUGHGHGHGHGH as he jumps into the shaft now). Darko fucked around with this message at 15:50 on Feb 25, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2013 15:45
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:That AUUUUGGGHHH is not there anymore. Was removed in '04 for the first DVD release. "What Lucas understands" is not irrelevant when he takes other people's work and then interprets in a way that people find as inferior based on not understanding the work in the first place. Death of the author is not an all-encompassing Bible - it's a particular approach to viewership, and even if you subscribe to it, there are arguments and instances in which intent still matters (when discussing specifics). The fact that Lucas didn't understand why, say, Luke shouldn't scream when defiantly jumping away from Vader (it doesn't matter if it was changed back - the point is that it was done) says that he also probably didn't understand how Yoda's presentation pulled from something like Snake in Eagle's Shadow, which is why he would make Yoda exert twice as much energy against a character he should come off as superior to in battling him with a lightsaber. Even if it lucked into thematically matching some of the prequels (and, yes, every bit of evidence points to most being luck), in an argument of aesthetic preference, it's perfectly valid to still state that, while things may make sense, they still might not necessarily be entertaining. Explaining what something means is not a trump card that invalidates someone's dislike. Having a 'different interpretation' is fine if your interpretation is backed by the material, which is quite doubtful in Lucas' case. You are right that his attempt was at making Flash Gordon serials, but other people elevated it and the mythology to more layered fantasy. Is it a surprise that people that grew attached to the work other people did dislike when he attempts to nullify it or scale it back down?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2013 16:11
|
|
|
quote:No, there really aren't. This is basically a loophole so we can continue with the "Lucas is a total idiot hack" narrative which is comforting and lets people reconcile the fact that the guy who made a movie they love also made movies they hate. It's comforting, in a way, to make him the villain. Lucas didn't make the movies everyone loved. He made American Graffiti, which a lot of people at the time liked because he hit a nostalgic nerve, but hasn't really lasted outside of that. He made A New Hope, except everyone who saw his early cuts said it was total poo poo until his wife edited it into what people loved. He didn't make Empire (which is the one people love the most, by the way) and was overridden rather consistently to the point where he forced more creative control in the next film because he didn't like that. He had more oversight when making Jedi (because he got rid of the people that disagreed with him), but he still didn't "make" it and people's favorite parts, which relied mostly on direction and editing were not done by him. He contributed to Indiana Jones by providing the basic idea and adding a few more ideas, but was mostly curbed by, Spielberg and, gasp, the writer of Empire Strikes Back saying "shut up George" in a nice way. Most of the stuff that people don't like about Crystal Skull come...surprise, from Lucas' ideas according to Ford and Spielberg. So, now, the actual narrative of, "Lucas doesn't understand the details of film making and direction but is good as a broad idea man" as evidenced by every piece of evidence on the matter, is now morphed into "comforting narrative to make people feel better?" What facts, exactly, are people making up here to comfort themselves?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2013 16:39
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:The early cut was a rough cut. All rough cuts are crude lumps of movie slapped into viewable form so the studio knows they've finished shooting. This is how editing works. Star Wars may have been made in the editing room, but so has every other good movie ever. Honest question: have you read the gradual whittling down of Star Wars scripts, and the reason for the whittlings? quote:The only major case of his being overruled was Ford saying "I know". Significant, but not the only reason the movie was any good, so again the narrative that he had no power whatsoever on the best movie is revisionist history for fans so they can continue to demonize the man. I like how things keep shifting in your responses. "Lucas' doesn't understand what other directors were saying" becomes "Lucas is a total idiot hack," the latter of which you respond to. "Having more oversight because he got rid of people who disagreed with him" became "Lucas had no control" in what you respond to. Hmmm... Anyway, the "disagreements" refer to the gradual whittling down in the scriptwriting and shooting process. Lucas writing a character called "Buffy" gets whittled down to a frog called "Minch Yoda," and gets turned into wise old master Yoda in the finished product as things are whittled down from multiple inputs by multiple people. Those multiple people that had those inputs wrote (AND DIRECTED) those things in mind of a completely different direction in Jedi, which Lucas mostly overrode. The first three movies were all collaborative processes with multiple revisions done by multiple people and realized by multiple people on screen. The prequels were entirely Lucas' vision with script "clean-up" done at the end by uncredited friends. It's not revisionist history in the slightest.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2013 17:00
|
|
|
The whole line is *truncated* "A Jedi's weapon, like your father's." It's not about disdain, it's likening Luke to his father, a fallen Jedi. I can't think of a single person who saw that scene with Palpatine and even had a thought pass through that he would have a lightsaber up his sleeve. They were wondering "what he could do" to match Yoda's force-lifting-mastery...and that was brought forth with pure force lightning energy, which was awesome.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2013 02:30
|
|
|
jivjov posted:But if we're taking ANH in a vacuum, Luke's father is not a fallen Jedi, he's a guy that was struck down by a fallen Jedi. Why would we be talking about ANH in a vaccum when talking about RotJ?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2013 03:38
|
|
|
jivjov posted:Well, we're discussing a line from ANH. And the current discussion is already wanting to look at the OT outside the context of the rest of the Star Wars saga. Why do we pick and choose what to include whne discussing a given line/concept/character? That's what Palpatine tells Luke. VADER His lightsaber. Vader extends a gloved hand toward the Emperor, revealing Luke's lightsaber. The Emperor takes it. EMPEROR Ah, yes, a Jedi's weapon. Much like your father's. By now you must know your father can never be turned from the dark side. So will it be with you.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2013 03:51
|
|
|
Cheesus posted:I think this is a great way to approach serialized fiction. Side point, the concurrent F4/Fantastic Four run by Hickman was the best the comic has ever been. You're doing yourself a disservice by not reading those if you liked the earlier eras of Kirby,etc. books.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2013 17:21
|
|
|
I honestly like the idea of Lucas being a vindictive jerk a lot better than him basically lucking onto success and then riding the efforts of others. It's more amusing that way.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2013 02:42
|
|
|
The Stormtroopers were ordered not to hit the people they were shooting at in most of their appearances. The whole point of them missing was that it was "too easy," which it was.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2013 17:34
|
|
|
MadDogMike posted:Leia did get shot by a bog standard stormtrooper though in the third movie. Granted it was one of those "hero wound to the shoulder" things, but still. As for the Ewoks, they did at least have the decency (even as just a tension-building thing) to show them getting beaten to crap for a while. You at least get the impression the after-battle party had a rather shortened guest list, so it's not like the Imperials were totally pathetic. Honestly if you weren't a hero in Star Wars your lifespan tended to be remarkably short if you were opposing the Empire. Rebel fighters were cool and all, but a drat lot of 'em bought it during the fighting every time even to "inferior" TIEs. The Rebels never managed a overwhelming victory, that's for sure. That stupid Stormtrooper meme is because people aren't able to follow the plot...in Star Wars. - In ANH, they were purposely letting the heroes escape so they could track them to the rebel base. That was a revelation after they already escaped. - In Empire, they overwhelmed the rebel base and the heroes barely escaped. Then C3PO got blown up by one. Then they were ordered to purposely lead Luke to Vader, so they weren't trying to hit him. Then they had a problem hitting the heroes. - In Jedi, Leia and R2D2 got shot and Ewoks got shot up. the meme mostly comes from Star Wars where the characters look into the camera and say "that was too easy" and then Tarkin says "muahaha the tracker was installed" or whatever. People still haven't noticed this 40 years later.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2013 14:40
|
|
|
quote:If they really wanted to let them go they probably would have taken more care not to crush them in a trash compactor known to be inhabited by a deadly squid anaconda thing. I always took that as an auto-system. They jumped in the trash compactor themselves, and it just started compacting on its auto cycle.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2013 03:52
|
|
|
echoplex posted:ROTJ is slightly confusing what with the B-wings and A-wings etc which runs against the idea that it's a ragtag fleet. I think with most things SW, it's more interesting when it's smaller. As the posted above is saying, I'm really surprised you're saying this. The "entirety" of the Rebel Fleet is a bunch of put together mixes of different nonsense and designs, with a bunch of different races, while the Empire is uniform (in race as well). it provides a rather perfect contrast there.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2013 17:38
|
|
|
The MSJ posted:Are the Hutts (or whatever their species are called) always mobsters in the EU? That's kinda racist. At least the Twi'lek have been shown to be Jedis, politicians and other things. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2013 14:44
|
|
|
Yeah, that's another issue. I don't mind Yoda getting a grand - visual - hubris change in Episode 2 as compared to 7 that would mirror Obi Wan in 3 as compared to 4. The issue with that is that Yoda's visual change happens in a 1/18th of his life as compared to Obi Wans difference of almost half of his or whatever. There's a magnitude of established length of gained wisdom there.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2013 21:09
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOLqGxuvf08 From this scientific study, Jedi is the most interesting visually, Sith is a clown cartoon, Empire seems like a slow drama, Star Wars looks like an indie flick, and AOTC and TPM are so dull as to be ignored.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2013 20:09
|
|
|
FrensaGeran posted:Because this would be the best thing ever it will assuredly never happen. "I didn't realize Mandalorians were so short"
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2013 14:13
|
|
|
randombattle posted:This is never ever a powerful story and the largest problem with EU stories. The dbz syndrome of more and more powerful things appearing out of nowhere is lazy and awful. On no look out the suncrusher is 100 times more powerful then the Death Star! Oh no it's the super galaxy gun that's like the sun crusher but bigger!! He didn't say that.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2013 16:47
|
|
|
Pobama posted:I for one do. The cut-scenes from the Shadows of the Empire game for the N64 have a more coherent plot and better characters then the new trilogy. Clone Wars cartoon was EU, and that kid's show was much better than any of the lovely book or game plots (well, KOTOR 1 was "ok" plotwise, at least).
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2013 14:18
|
|
|
Was Boba Fett EU first? Since he appeared in the Christmas Special before Empire?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2013 15:29
|
|
|
His non Pixar scores have been kind of meh, honestly. I liked his thematic work in the Star Treks, but that's all they are. In fact, judging by the Star Trek scores, I'd definitely rather not.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2013 21:46
|
|
|
scary ghost dog posted:All of Zimmer's music is the same and Williams is great, but I'd rather see a Star Wars movie with a totally fresh to the franchise crew. Giacchino proved he could do amazing takes on existing scores with Speed Racer and Ghost Protocol; I would much rather hear his version of Star Wars than yet another John Williams orchestration. All of Zimmer's work isn't the same, it's just been similar for the last ~5 years due to him only working on "big" scores and doing similar stuff for each because of topic. He still has top 3 working composer skill/originality when he gets something that interests him (which would be the case if he works for a Spielberg or on a Star Wars or something). John Williams' work on Tintin was excellent and proves that he still has adventurous scores in him. Giancchino hasn't shown the range, skill or originality of a Zimmer or Williams in any way - you're talking top tier of two different approaches as compared to the next tier down that has still yet to prove he can match either of their great work, much less greatEST from either. His Ghost Protocol score wasn't as good as Mission impossible 2, Up wasn't as good as E.T., Prince of Egypt, or Simpsons (unmatched, what?), and Speed Racer than Catch Me if You Can, Black Hawk Down, etc. He relies too much on a singular theme or two and then tonal filler to get back to those same themes, which are called back far to often.  If anyone replaces Williams, it should actually probably be Alexadre Desplat, given his rather clean Harry Potter transitions and evolutions, to be honest.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2013 00:52
|
|
|
Cellophane S posted:You're loving crazy sorry. His Lincoln score is pretty bad, to be fair. Ugh - it was too bombastic as to be distracting - to the point I wish it would just shut off while watching the film at times. It's kind of like his score to The Patriot in that way. Also, Episode 1 was kind of meh as a score, while Episode 3 was pretty great.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2013 00:54
|
|
|
scary ghost dog posted:I disagree fundamentally on every aspect of this post. Why, though? Can you post examples? For instance, when I say MI-2's score was better, I would say there is nothing in Ghost Protocol that touches, say, this - especially when talking about pulling emotion out of a scene (that wouldn't be there otherwise): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X79HqsVsKRg You said "nothing touches UP," and yet, Zimmer is currently (as in last year) doing stuff like this with animation with a higher level of orchestration and scoring that doesn't just rely on "theme - fill - theme" that Giancchino hasn't proven capable of yet (and also proves that he can do classical style scoring if he wants to): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoO0s1ukcqQ And I'd love to hear an explanation of how, say those two things "sound the same" since all of his stuff apparently "sounds the same." Meanwhile, Williams is currently doing stuff like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMQXgWT3kX8 And when Desplat took over from Williams with Harry Potter, he did stuff like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TB_BLx5c3M So, as I said, an actual counterpoint? Darko fucked around with this message at 16:13 on Jul 28, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2013 16:10
|
|
|
scary ghost dog posted:And just like John Williams made brilliant, beautiful music with Spielberg and Lucas, Giacchino makes beautiful music with J J Abrams, and I like to see them work together. That's why I think it's a shame he's not doing Star Wars. I understand what you're saying, but, honestly, I think that's more of a case of "relate a composer to a film I like." In other words, you tend to remember motifs with certain films more than other, often dependent on reception. No one remembers the Angels and Demons motifs added because no one saw/liked the movie in the first place, for instance. I'll use your Pixar stuff as an example. Could it be because you -liked- UP more than comparable animated movies and thus did a score - relation thing with it? Because, if you're talking "rousing thematics," what animated films hit higher heights with consistent and memorable themes than How to Train Your Dragon by John Powell ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLfyksVrChY ) or Kung Fu Panda (Powell/Zimmer): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duRKalDDUik . Out of modern composers, only around 3-4 have proven that they can do themes + orchestrations on the level of Williams' Star Wars stuff, and Giacchino isn't really one of them. For instance, if he scored Empire, there would be no Asteroid Theme, for one thing, it's decidedly more complex than anything he's scored (which is what tonally adds to why it sounds so great), and secondly, because he tends to do two themes and rely on them totally, so you'd just have a variation of the Han and Leia theme for that section since Han and Leia are in the Falcon during it. Reference (drat Youtube for taking the original down, this is the best I can do): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3IIeNorhVU I mean, that's so technically proficient that I've seen two orchestral arrangements simply not able to do it (DSO and OSO). And it sounds fantastic on top of that. I think that's more of what I and others are referring to - even myself that likes more...tonal-mood scores will agree on this. Star Wars needs more than just themes, it needs a level of grandeur from the orchestrations on top of it that come from a level of complexity that only certain composers can do at this point. Darko fucked around with this message at 00:07 on Jul 29, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2013 23:45
|
|
|
penismightier posted:I haven't seen any of the prequels since theaters, can anyone post a link to a representative track from their soundtracks? Don't remember the music at all, really. I'm going to do a little different, since the "standout" tracks aren't necessarily representative of the films, in my opinion. For instance, Phantom Menace's score wasn't very aurally...pleasing...probably because Williams had so little on film to work with. Duel of the Fates' stands out so much because it's the only likable-tune thing on that score (which isn't how it appears in the movie) - otherwise, it's mostly quick callbacks with some motifs added that aren't as good as the OT's motifs. So, here at 1:05, for instance, starts what is basically the Trade Federation motif-march, which is not as good as the Empire march, and the rest is typical of most of the transitions/fills in the movie. 2:00 in you'll hear how Duel of the Fates is typically mixed into the score in the films, sometimes in weird points where I can't figure out why it's used (Anakin riding the speeder bike in Episode 2, what?), and mostly briefly at a time, as it's almost always in a montage of sorts. 3:10ish is the victory fanfare for young Anakin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WyVs_L8z8E ...more later.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2013 00:06
|
|
|
sassassin posted:Jedi was on TV the other day. The first half hour is loving awful (I turned it off after that). Huh, no it's not. Jabba's palace is fantastic, especially in score and design, and the buildup of Luke finally getting some lightsaber action is great as well. That's the first half hour. Jedi has some of the best moments in any of the movies, period, it's just that parts seem lifeless - next to Empire especially (the jump from ANH to Jedi is negligable), and a lot seems like a copout since you can feel the contrivance of the retread in bits.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2013 13:44
|
|
|
sassassin posted:I couldn't disagree more. The 'lightsaber action' is an awkward mess compared to the end fight in Empire, the effects work is shoddy, there's a loving musical dance sequence, the plan makes no sense and everyone comes out the other end looking like a bumbling fool. The dance sequence technically doesn't exist in Jedi. You're describing "Special Jedi," which is a different story entirely. That one addition ruins the pacing and mood of the entire opening. I'd also argue that Yub Nub makes the Ewoks better in retrospect while the weird flute-y choir song in Special Jedi makes them seem more out of place.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2013 14:51
|
|
|
Diabolik900 posted:Even normal Jedi has a musical number, but it's shorter and fits into the world much better. The original, Lapti Nek, is a discordant John Williams composition that just upped the weirdness factor of the entire sequence. Notice that it still contained a lot of ambient crowd noise, too, meaning it felt like a background song and not like it was taking over the entire scene: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dV0LD-QAzg0 No idea what Jedi Rocks is, but I don't think I've ever seen a movie just grind to a halt for 3 minutes with nothing to add to it like that before.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2013 14:59
|
|
|
aBagorn posted:Same. Williams really nailed that. The last part of Yub Nub segues into the end titles so much better with the note change of the choir. edit: And the new song doesn't fit the dancing either. It's fine on its own as a tune, but there are a couple of reasons that the original Yub Nub composition fits in slightly better. I think most of the hate is that it's a reminder of Ewoks, and makes the Empire going down center around them, as opposed to the actual composition. Darko fucked around with this message at 15:06 on Jul 29, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2013 15:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 16:42 |
|
|
Tender Bender posted:Everyone who hasn't seen it in a while should look it up on youtube, it's worse than you remember. It's a jarring tone, doesn't fit the context, looks terrible, and is incoherent even as a standalone scene. While the original was a look around Jabbas palace whild some performers pkay in the background, this version is a scene in which googly eyed monsters literally scream into the camera and then Jabba kills someone. It's Oogieloves levels of "Something abysmally terrible and stupid but kids will love it because _______" and, like the other bad parts of the special editions, is worse than the prequels because it actively makes a good movie bad. Also, the original scene upped the creepy factor by having the singers being genuinely weird looking puppets. The special edition scene did things to make them "cuter" like enlarging the eyes, and changing the lead singer to the "cuter" one, destroying the weirdness tie-in to the cantina scene (where each alien also purposely looked weird/unsettling), and making a weird commercial feeling thing in its place. And don't get me started on the difference between the Sarlacc beak as compared to the fear of the unknown of not imagining what was under/in/made up the Sarlacc pit.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2013 22:20
|
|