😂
Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Apparently there's a deleted scene showing Maz actually being "force sensitive" & collapsing the ceiling on a bunch of StormTroopers that chase them into the basement of the cantina.Supposedly, Maz then escapes on The Falcon & she's the one that hands Luke's saber to Leia.
Well, that makes sense. The latter bit indeed. Remember the trailer shot of the sabre being handed over by Maz to probably Leia? It was never in the movie.
I still wonder how that would have worked with Finn using the sabre first. Maybe it's gonna be on the blu ray.
Other scenes wanted in apparently.
Why? There is such a thing as a Director's Cut in editing: it's the first edit the director puts together. But usually that's not the one that ends up in theatres. It's also not per se the best cut.
Usually this kind of thing gets into play when a studio takes over and butchers the original view of the director. Sometimes because the original is crap and sometimes because they don't get it.
Ridely Scott makes alternative (longer) cuts of his films. But in the case of Gladiator he said that the one you see in the theatre, THAT is the director's cut. I think his last cut of Alien (which is mere details except for one added scene) and his DVD cut of Kingdom of Heaven are the only exceptions where he prefers the latest cuts.
So maybe JJ is just in a position where he has Final Cut and what ends up in theatres IS the cut he prefers.
I just hate the fact that films are primarily edited to fit in a regulated time frame that cinemas adhere to. Editors so often cut out vital scenes that can alter the integrity of the director's initial vision. Often when films hit DVD, you'll find alternate scenes & endings that make for sense to the theatrical release or the Director's Cut that makes more sense to its initial release.
Considering films are reviewed & criticised on theatrical release can have a negative impact on its success only to have a positive & favoured response once the Director's Cut is shown on DVD. And by this stage, it's rather to late to warrant a sequel or reverse the negative reviews given to the director.
I'm sure if fans were given the option to watch either the theatrical release Or The Director's Cut to TFA, the would choose the unadulterated version & lap up every additional scene made available to them.
Originally posted by ares834
He wanted Maul to capture the Queen so he could return her to Naboo where she would sign the Treaty. He says as much to Maul.And revealing themselves to the Jedi makes no sense. Sure, it gives them a “phantom” to fight but in this case it’s not some lie but actually what they are up against. Admittedly, he probably expected Maul to kill the Jedi and the dialogue hints as such.
That's one theory (that he wanted the Queen to be forced to sign the treaty). But then how does that match-up to his use of Amidala to remove the Supreme Chancellor from office and then get a sympathy vote to be put in as the new Supreme Chancellor?
Question: does the queen signing that treaty have a way to ruin his plans? I'm trying to think of how signing the original crappy treaty from the Trade Federation could be part of Palps plans. Thinking about it, it doesn't seem contradictory to what Palps wanted. I think Palps still could have succeeded. In other words, whether or not the Queen was captured and brought back to Coruscant and forced to sign; or whether or not she escaped and made it back to Coruscant with the Jedi from Tatooine, it didn't matter. Palps would have gotten what he needed.
That Naboo people defeating the Trade Federation was not detrimental to Palps plans. It was just a variable that didn't really matter. What did matter was getting the queen back on Coruscant. I think...
Originally posted by Esau Cairn
I just hate the fact that films are primarily edited to fit in a regulated time frame that cinemas adhere to. Editors so often cut out vital scenes that can alter the integrity of the director's initial vision. Often when films hit DVD, you'll find alternate scenes & endings that make for sense to the theatrical release or the Director's Cut that makes more sense to its initial release.Considering films are reviewed & criticised on theatrical release can have a negative impact on its success only to have a positive & favoured response once the Director's Cut is shown on DVD. And by this stage, it's rather to late to warrant a sequel or reverse the negative reviews given to the director.
I'm sure if fans were given the option to watch either the theatrical release Or The Director's Cut to TFA, the would choose the unadulterated version & lap up every additional scene made available to them.
Not every Director's Cut is the better cut.
Originally posted by queeq
Yes, but you didn't make it make more sense. And doesn't TPM sound extremely boring if this is the central plotline? 😉
So you're saying everyone finds political power plays from crafty- ruthless-villains, boring? Alright. 🙂
Originally posted by queeq
Just a few things though:1. when it comes to the treaty. I don't want to know how people sign papers. Frankly, I don't care much about the whole fake political stuff we get in this movie. But... why doesn't Amidala just sign the treaty? If it's just about money.... She signs it and they go away.... What's IN the treaty that they make this the crucial thing that's to resolve this issue? They don't do this at other planets or other planets have already signed. So it takes a blockade, an invasion, people suffering in camps, a Sith Lord sent out... all this effort to get a treaty signed... for something.
Apparently, the Trade Federation wanted absurdly high taxes for any trading being done too or from Naboo (It's just referred to as "trade routes" which implies trading too and from Naboo, imo). So much so that the Naboo people refused to play along. We aren't given the details of how ridiculous the demands were from the Trade Federation but it seems rather simple:
1. They had to be so high that the Naboo couldn't even come close to playing nicely with the demands.
2. They were purposefully made too high by the Trade Federation because Palps was manipulating this situation from behind the scenes. He caused this mess. On purpose.
And signing a very one-sided treaty from the Trade Federation? Why would Amidala want to virtually enslave an entire planet of her people, again? What about that makes sense? Of course she wouldn't want to sign something so ridiculous. If she signed it, then the Trade Federation's actions would be justified/absolved.
And that "for something?" I feel I have made it clear/obvious that the "for something" was for Palps to climb to power?
Originally posted by queeq
Now, one could excuse this as a sort of McGuffin. But a McGuffin is usually something that gets the story in motion and should be done away with somewhere in the movie. But it's like saying in Raiders of the Lost Ark that we never know what the treasure is what Indy and the nazi's are after. If it would be Raiders of the Lost Treasure and we never get to see what the fuss is about... it wouldn't work. Then after a while you think: there must be something special about this thing that people want its so much. But what? This is exactly what happens in TPM.
No, no it is not something that happens. The TPM is about finding Anakin, introducing us to Luke and Leia's mom, and the Evil Emperor's rise to power. It showed us all of that. And it did it well. The movie seemed rather simple to me when I saw it as a kid. I mean...there was nothing that went over my head. I think that forcing the "confusion" on the film for the political power play from Palps is forcing it. The people how make those arguments have been, 100% of the time, smarter than the average person. It is just baseless and unwarranted complaining about the TPM. "We didn't understand the politics of TPM. TPM is so horrible because of this." That's just not an honest argument.
Originally posted by queeq
2. The Jedi. What's the point of sending out Jedi 'in secret' and not report their findings when they come back? I mean, the are the 'guardians of peace and justice of the old Republic'. I suppose they have some standing in the galaxy. And if they don't: why send them?
Didn't I explain this already? Could have sworn I explained that already. hmm
So why would the Supreme Chancellor send two Jedi, secretly, to function as ambassadors to negotiate the dispute of Naboo? What you're really asking is, "why would the Supreme Chancellor, who was tied up in arguments and debates about what was going on Naboo (to the frustration and chagrin of the Naboo people), secretly send Jedi as "fake ambassadors" to Naboo to strong-arm negotiate with the Trade Federation to stop their blockade?
Your question is like asking, "Why would I want to eat ice-cold, delicious, juicy watermelon right after I finished mowing the lawn on a hot summer day?"
If this is really what you want to know and you genuinely don't know why Chancellor Valorum sent the two "ambassadors" to Naboo, I'll honestly answer it.
Originally posted by queeq
Was it illegal for Valorum to send Jedi or was that in his jurisdiction? If it was in his right, why not let them testify or at least mention their reports in the Senate?
Why would Valorum want the senate, who was in hot debate over the whole situation (and was not taking any action because they couldn't agree to it) want to out himself in front of the entire senate as being power-hungry and making unilateral decision for the entire Republic? What was the reason he sent the Jedi as fake ambassadors, in secret?
Originally posted by queeq
Let's suppose what OB1 says in ANH and what's said in the opening crawl of TPM that they are the guardians of peace and justice, why don't they play any role of importance in this conflict? they're pretty useless:1. They go for negotiations, but they never take place.
2. They go down to warn the Naboo, but they come too late
3. They help Padme get out, but they can't fight a war for her
4. They get back to Coruscant, they report their findings, but nothing is done with them
5. They're sent back to Naboo, not to fight a war but to protect Padme (which they don't) and to identify their attacker (which they don't, they only find out that they're pretty sure it was a Sith Lord but at the end they are none the wiser).
1. Because they were ordered to be killed by the real leader/boss of the Trade Federation. No negotiations can take place if they are killed.
2. Yeah, they were busy fighting for their lives and trying to escape against a literal massive droid army. Cut them some slack for not being able to warn the Naboo people that it's...a trap! 🙂
3. That's a Jedi Code issue. It's actually one of the underlying plot points of the trilogy: the impotence, inaction, and uselessness of an arrogant religious sect that was supposed to serve as the protectors and guardians of the Republic. You're complaint proves you acknowledge and enjoy of the underlying issues with the Jedi Order. Your complaint is legit...it is a complaint all of us are supposed to have. And it is foreshadowing of Anakin's conversation with Palps about a Supreme Leader forcing the Republic to do what is right.
4. Did...did...I'm trying to be respectful and not ask jerkhole questions. But did you honestly pay attention to the movie during all of that stuff? Do you remember anything at all about a quote I posted form Padme about how Padme didn't want to wait for the people of Naboo's situation to be discussed and debated in a committee? Also, Valorum already knew about the illegal situation on Naboo. That's why he secretly dispatched two Jedi to strong-arm an agreement(dammit, I wasn't supposed to tell you that...you were supposed to tell me that. Oh well. That's the answer to the test question) with the trade federation: to try to get something done.
5. Well...they really voluntarily go back to Naboo (despite the council asking them to go back, it was more of an obvious "do what you already plan to do but while you are at it, learn more about this potential Sith character) to learn more about their attacker and also to obviously help Padme liberate her people. They killed their attacker (great...that's good) and liberated the people of Naboo from the Trade Federation (great, awesome). They still speculated that if it was a Sith, there should be 2. 2 out of 3 victories is nice...but they still had not encountered a second so we can't really count that as a loss.
Originally posted by queeq
3. Motion of no Confidence. You summarise the movie to me. But you don't explain to me why Palpy does anything to get Padme does anything to keep/get Padme on Naboo to sign the treaty, yet... he also needs her for the Motion of no Confidence to get Valorum out of the way. These two 'strategies' contradict. What does he want? The treaty signed (for some reason that can only be done on Naboo) or Valorum out of the way?
What?
I think what you're asking is why he wanted Padme for his plans? As I explained to Ares, there's no contradiction. Either the Jedi bring her back or he captures her and brings her back. Regardless, she is brought back in either scenario.
Here are your two scenarios:
1. The original. The Jedi bring her back and she talks in front of the senate. She doesn't sign the treaty with the Trade Federation. She talks to the senate about her problem and gets Chancellor Valorum removed.
2. A possible outcome: Maul succeeds in killing the 2 Jedi and capturing the Queen. She is brought back to Coruscant and forced to sign the treaty. She talks to the senate and gets Chancellor Valorum removed.
Where's the contradiction, again?
And what if the plan was for her to escape the whole time? What if he lied to Maul about Maul outclassing the Jedi? What if the plan was simply to scare the Jedi, scare Padme, and to reveal themselves to the Jedi to scare the Jedi (and make them fight a very unknown phantom which would distract them). You know...that's exactly what happens. They Jedi lose their shit and **** up horribly in the next two films.
Originally posted by queeq
His strategies are either contradictory and don't make any sense or Sidious is so brilliant that whatever events take place, he always gets his way. Which then would make everything in the PT 'much ado about nothing'. But I think it's the first: it doesn't make sense, ergo sloppy writing.
I'm thinking that Sidious knew exactly what he was doing...since he accomplished what he set out to do.