XPost: rec.arts.tv, rec.arts.sf.tv, rec.arts.movies.past-films
From: anybody@anywhere-anytime.com
In article , Merrick
Baldelli wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 16:40:51 +1200, Anybody
> wrote:
>
> [much snippage to appease the gods of bandwidth]
> >> This is what I believe Palpatine was setting up in his
> >> destruction of the Jedi Order.
> >
> >In the novelisation, I think (since i haven't read it yet) Palpatine
> >had a doctored security video from his office of Mace Windu "turning
> >bad" as well as Anakin as a witness.
>
> *cringe* There's that whole thing about novelizations again.
> Explaining what wasn't done in the movie, and done so by something
> that didn't write the screenplay.
Not everything can be shown in a two-hour movie, plus movies are visual
mediums meaning it's difficult to know what a character is thinking.
The novelisation can give you a better insight into this.
As I've said before, the movie novelisations are directly from the
movie scripts and George Lucas's own notes and interviews. They're as
close as you get to an official answer.
If you want to be one of those "movie only" twits, then there's little
point in wasting time trying to answer what can't be answered by just
the film.
> >Much of the Senate also believed Palpatine was simply the mild mannered
> >politician who was saving the galaxy from the Separatists.
>
> I'd love to see how "doctored" that vid would be to show Windu
> using force lightning.
From my quick flick through the novel, the doctored security video
shows an angry Jedi, a poilte Palpatine and then Palpatine running
around shouting "Help! They're trying to kill me!".
> >At least part of the problem is that you're now viewing these new shows
> >/ movies from an adult perspective, so it's difficult to say.
>
> I'm also the perpetual adolescent too... Which is how I get
> temperatures between adult and child. The way things are presented
> has in fact changed, sometimes significantly. Take the original
> series with SuperMarionation: The Thunderbirds for example, and
> compare it to the tripe that was made not too many years ago.
Jonathan Frakes' "Thunderbirds" movie was utter rubbish, largely
because he had no idea what "Thunderbirds" was, he ignored everything
that had come before AND they were simply trying to make a clone of Spy
Kids to cash in on the mildly succesful movie at that time. Which tends
to happen in Hollyweird: one place makes a successful movie, and all
the others jump on the bandwagon and make a clone.
> >Kids are also growing up faster these days (whether that's forced or
> >not is a different question). When I was at school the first "school
> >dance" was when you were at secondary / high school age. These days 8
> >adn 9 years olds are having school dances when they should still be
> >running around complaining about "boy germs " and "girl germs". They're
> >also watching rubbish like One Tree Hill which is meant to be for older
> >adolescents.
>
> I've seen that... On the one side, part of these changes are
> nice, and I rather like the thought that elementary school kids are
> more prone to play together rather than separated, hence the death of
> all this 'boy germs/girl germs'. On the other hand, I've watched the
> way parents push this and I wonder, is this actually the doing of the
> adults? Sometimes it feels to be the case.
The case of shows like One Tree Hill is that you've got 20+ year olds
trying to pretend that they're 15 ... but they're acting like 20+ year
olds. The kids then try to copy them.
> >Yes, but why did the show have to "grow up" just because the viewers
> >supposedly have?!? These fools are going to be expecting "grown up"
> >versions of Sesame Street in 30 years time. :-\
>
> Is it grown up though? Or is it that it's taking into effect
> that people are more educated as to hardships and the possible
> problems of space travel now than they were thirty years ago?
>
> Take a look at Star Trek: Voyager as an example of what
> happens when an adolescent approach is taken to being stranded in a
> distant part of the galaxy and compare it to BSG, and ask yourself --
> which one makes more sense?
It depends what you mean by "sense".
Yes, the new "Battlestar Galactica" is more realistic, but then few
people want to watch realism, especially real wars ... there's enough
of that on the daily news, if not outside your own front door. Voyager
is a better piece of entertainment with a wider appeal. It's escapism.
But that's not the point. The point was why should the original
Battlestar Galactica have to "grow up" just because many of the
original fans supposedly have?!?!? "Battlestar Galactica" was aimed at
the same audience as Star Wars, mainly boys around 13 years old. You
may have watched Sesame Street 30 years ago, but you would be an utter
imbecile to expect a "grown up" version today.
If they wanted to make a realistic space show, then why bother re-using
the name of the original show. Just make a brand new show with a brand
new name. The only real reason behind using the original's name was to
bandwagon jump onto the latest fad of "remakes" (99% of which have
little resemblance to the original).
> >The movie novelisations are written directly from George Lucas' scripts
> >and extra notes, as was "Splinter of the Minds Eye". They aren't
> >completely made up like the EU novels are.
>
> There's still some creative license involved on the part of
> the novelizing writer; of which I see no distinction between the two
> when it comes to any form of novelization.
There is very little "creative license" in the movie novelisations. The
distinction is that the movie novelisations come straight off the
scripts and George's own notes / background ideas. They are not
completely made up by the authors like the EU novels (although even
those have fairly strict guidelines). There is very little that the
movie novelisation authors change, the gaps they fill (eg. reading a
character's mind) are taken from George Lucas' own ideas and direction
notes.
> >All of the story ideas are passed by George Lucas for his approval and
> >certain timeframes and storylines are completely out of bounds.
>
> And to think that LucasArts approved "Splinter..." as well.
As before, Splinter *WAS* the original idea from George Lucas for the
sequel. It was going to be released as a novel even if the movie wasn't
successful. The movie obviously was successful, so George Lucas went on
to make more movies, and in doing so he altered his original storyline.
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
