Registered: Dec 2004
Location: Los Angeles, CA
United States
When one is making a movie is movie not shot out of order? Are adjustments not made? Are reshoots necesarry? Can a movie sometime take years to make? Yes Yes Yes.
GL sees the saga as one long movie. He shot it out of order. He rewrites, he re-edits, he changes, adjusts continuity, musical cues, adds, subtracts. The fact that he does it over the course of 30 years does not change the fact that he's making a movie. Hes an experimental filmmaker who is working on a lifes work. The only strange luxury he has is the ability to constantly re-exhibit portions of this "One big movie" to show us his latest draft. Lucas has always maintained that the release of a film is nothing more than a business decision. It is not an artistic one. He has joked that maybe the next films he makes will not be released, they'll just be for his own private amusement. Of course he'll release them, but philosophically he sees the difference. The line you stand in and the ticket you buy to see his latest release is 100 percent independent of his agenda as an artist. He understands and appreciates that he is virtually the only filmmaker in the industry who has the luxury of owning his own film, keep working on it regardless of its "release" and to have a built in audience that will financially support him.
If you look at the Star Wars Saga as a giant film production as he does, then he is doing nothing that a regular filmmaker with a smaller film wouldnt do. Forget the "release" of the movie. And the fact that the 1997 versions of the OT will in the end be the MOST FORGOTTEN and HARD TO FIND DEAD AND BURIED drafts of the movies when all is said and done, especially proves that there is nothing definitive about them. The OOT (77,80,83) seemto have finallyresurfacedfor posterity and will be somehow preserved over the 97's. 97 is dead and buried.
Really the crux of your argument is that you're trying to diagnose Lucas as a nutcase. Are you a doctor? That's pretty lazy arguing there. He's just a guy making a film, and he works slow, and wants to get it right. Understand?
Either you get what I'm saying here or not. TPM that's already out is the definitive version...meaning it is the definitve peace of art for the reasons above.
I argue these points for art's sake...you argue them for the artist's sake...that's dangerous thinking. You can't trust artists to uphold artistic ideals.
The ideal version of TPM is the one that's out now. There was nothing stopping them from making exactly the film they wanted to make. Even if a digital Yoda wouldn't look perfect (Jar-Jar and Sebulba were pretty darn impressive), they could have had it in there.
...Similarly, there's was nothing stopping them from adding more to the SE (which was a needed fix for the tehnological inadequacies of the OOT)...Me saying they could've added Naboo is just an extreme example...A perfect example is something like changing the English lettering on the tractor beam to the space font...that's just stupid.
As far as continuity is concerned though, they could have added stuff that would probably show up in Episode I (which was only a couple years down the road) if they really wanted to. They made the decision not to (probably for some decent reasons), but it's a decision nonetheless...Going back and changing that is basically saying (we made the wrong decision)...Wrong or not...the decision was made...and for art's sake, it must stand.
My arguments rule! All you guys are arguing is basically "Leave George alone...whatever he says, flies"
That's BS
__________________
Last edited by EPIIIBITES on Sep 2nd, 2006 at 02:09 AM
Registered: Dec 2004
Location: Los Angeles, CA
United States
Of course it is. You're confusing because you make no sense. An incoherent babbler.
But its cool you're probably only 14. If you're any older you better start claiming you're younger because there's no way any adult should get away with this idiocy.
My dear friend, art is NOT subjective...And in case you haven't figured it out...the OT is good art...the PT is bad art.
Take music for example...good music has certain qualities that make it good (be it depth, originality, imagination, substance, a sense of soul, etc...). Now, you take something like Britney Spears that doesn't have those qualities, and you have a perfect example of music that is NOT good.
If art were subjective, then Britney Spears could be considered good music. Of course there are people that like Brittaney Spears, but that doesn't mean it's good...it's just that a lot of people tend to like crap.
The key point is, most people will say art is subjective because then there's no chance they could be accused of liking crap...or not being able to see what isn't crap.
Also, some people are just not capable of being a judge of what is good art and bad art. We don't all have the same capacity to do so.
I see why you don't understand my arguments...because you don't live in a universe of ideals...you should, 'cause that's reality.
__________________
Last edited by EPIIIBITES on Sep 3rd, 2006 at 05:21 AM
I'm with EjkoUSC... I think your ideas are ridiculous. Good and bad are subjective terms, they can't be universally defined. Terrorists don't think they are doing something bad when they blow up a bus... to us, of course it is bad, but to them... well, who the hell knows what they're thinking, but I'm sure they think they're serving some greater good.
And art, especially, is subjective. I really just can't understand how you could be so narrow minded to believe otherwise. It's the reason people have different opinions of films... I believe Napolean Dynamite is a good film. Many people believe it is not. To me it is good, to others it is bad.
And as for not wanting to like crap... There are tonnes of things I like that I believe to be crap. Like Prison Break. A truly terrible show, but I've never missed an episode.
...Who cares what terrorists think when they're blowing up a bus...You're totally missing the big picture. It's bad regardless of what they (or even we) think.
As I metioned in my post, not all people are capable or have the capacity to decide what is good or bad (regarding art as well as morals). Failing to understand this is what's keeping you (and probably the other dude) from gaining a greater understanding of ideals and universal principles (that sure enough do exist in art...which is where this all started).
And although I'm not necessarily talking about you here, what's harder for someone to do than just admitting they like crap is perhaps to admit that they might not in fact be capable or have the capacity to define what is good and bad...because they wouldn't want to think of themselves as stupid now would they?
But that's reality...some people are just in a better intellectual position to be a judge of certain things than others (and vice versa), and a lot of people wouldn't agree with this because it's a tough pill to swallow.
Anyway, I'm still right about the SE, the OT & PT, art and terrorists...There's nothing at all compicated about your guys' arguments. I understand all of them and have heard them all before...they're pretty basic. But I'd suggest looking at my posts again and pondering exactly what is on the page...it is clear you guys haven't seen it from the right light or understood even half of it.
P.S. Just to put your mind at ease, Napolean Dynamite is not a bad film by any means...people who don't like it just don't get it (and maybe even people who do like it might not get it)...but there is a lot there to be "gotten" so to speak, on so many levels.
__________________
Last edited by EPIIIBITES on Sep 3rd, 2006 at 03:19 PM
Of course art is subjective. I used to like Michael Jackson's music, in fact some the 80s stuff of is wonderful. But the man, he's a goner. So we separate the artist from the art.
Sorry, EPIIIBITES, but I find your ideas to be nothing more than delusional ramblings... I understand where you're coming from, I really do, but I disagree wholeheartedly. Whatever... to each his own.
Registered: Dec 2004
Location: Los Angeles, CA
United States
Well I too agree with DeviDodo. Though I think Napoleon Dynamite is crap (crap).
My god, there is nothing MORE SUBJECTIVE than "universal ideals". Have you spoken to the universe? How the heck is art not subjective? Anything created by one person is subjective. Just like your BS postings. Subjective. And the more and more you try to explain yourself the less and less intelligent you sound. Step back son. I gurantatee you with every fiber of anything that's ever been that I'm more intelligent than you. Doesnt make me objective. Let intelligent people claim to be objective. Even then they'll be wrong. But for an out-right moron to claim to be anything other than the meandering self-congratulating slob that he is is ridiculous.
And the fact that I got others agreeing with me at least goes to prove that I'm better at articulating my points than you. You convince no one because you have nothing to bring.
Man...I've warned you a couple times to be repectful.
You've crossed the line more than a few times now...simply because you don't agree with an opinion or think it's a stupid one!! Wow...
If you look at "ALL" the other people that agree with you...2...you'll see that they're not being aggressive in their arguments...but how you're acting...oh boy. And I think I'll take my philosophy prof's opinions of me and my capacity for understanding objectivity (and for higher thinking in general) over what a couple guys on "Killer Movies, STAR WARS" think...no offence...but it's not quite the same.
The simple fact that you think you can say you're "more intelligent" than someone else really shows me where you're coming from.
...And sorry to dissapoint you but I am quite confident in my intillectual abilities and have a lot of accolades and accomplishments behind me to support them...
Dude, you're hurtin'
__________________
Last edited by EPIIIBITES on Sep 5th, 2006 at 02:39 AM
High on yourself much? Anybody who has to declare how intelligent they are must be trying to compensate for something. You need to relax.
And I do agree, that there really is no definitive SW trilogy, just the most updated version for it's time (the '04 DVDs seem to fill this slot for the time being), but if EPIIIBITES believes the '97 trilogy is the definitve version, then I guess for him it is. All the flaming in the world isn't gonna get him to change his mind.
I can guarantee that you are more intelligent than a 2 year old DeVi| D0do ...But it'd be ridiculous to think that I could state you are more or less intelligent than any other adult/young adult on these forums...At some point it gets a little too complex with human beings...ESPECIALLY since I don't even know them...Maybe God could figure that one out...
....but NO I don't think it takes God to figure out objectivity in other things (like making an objective decision if Britney's crap, or if terrorism is wrong, or if the Director's Cut of Blade Runner is the definitve version of the film, or if a certain release of the LOTR novels is the definitve release...or if the SE and curent release of TPM are the definitve versions).
...I still haven't heard anything that counters the logic in my arguments...all I'm hearing is "it's all subjective...just 'cause it is".
__________________
Last edited by EPIIIBITES on Sep 5th, 2006 at 01:53 PM
1. Definitve Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band...mono or stereo?
2. Definitve Apocalypse Now...1979 or 2001?
3. Definitve Yoda...Franks Oz or ILM?
...and yes I would argue that there's an objective and correct answer for all of these...and just like I offered up reasoning and put forth solid arguments for the SE and TPM as being definitive, I can do the same with these...
I truly don't think they are matters of opinion. I think you can break it down to reveal the objective truth of what's definitve and why...like I've already done with the SW films.
__________________
Last edited by EPIIIBITES on Sep 5th, 2006 at 02:55 PM
Sep 2nd, 2006 12:59 AM
...But it'd be ridiculous to think that I could state you are more or less intelligent than any other adult/young adult on these forums...At some point it gets a little too complex with human beings...ESPECIALLY since I don't even know them...Maybe God could figure that one out...
