• Most new users don't bother reading our rules. Here's the one that is ignored almost immediately upon signup: DO NOT ASK FOR FANEDIT LINKS PUBLICLY. First, read the FAQ. Seriously. What you want is there. You can also send a message to the editor. If that doesn't work THEN post in the Trade & Request forum. Anywhere else and it will be deleted and an infraction will be issued.
  • If this is your first time here please read our FAQ and Rules pages. They have some useful information that will get us all off on the right foot, especially our Own the Source rule. If you do not understand any of these rules send a private message to one of our staff for further details.
  • Please read our Rules & Guidelines

SW - Star Wars

Vultural

Well-known member
Donor
Messages
3,073
Reaction score
3
Trophy Points
43
Oh, hell, and he wrote that under his post.
Read, fool, I remind myself.
Thanks, TMBTM
 

asterixsmeagol

Well-known member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
2,010
Reaction score
924
Trophy Points
128
How does Harmy's edit comepare to the Hyperspace Edition for those who have seen it? It's a 1080p scale up of the Laserdisc versions.
 

Moe_Syzlak

Well-known member
Messages
3,450
Reaction score
1,161
Trophy Points
118
I recently watched Yads' "Dan Edit" of RotJ and it spurred me do this to a scene that's always bothered me: The*Han/Leia interaction right after the Death Star is destroyed.**Yads did tighten up the which I was very glad to see. But I think it can be taken further. What if it went like*this:

- Leia says "he wasn't. I can feel it."
- Cut to Han looking a little confused by this statement
- Cut to Leia who simply says "He's my brother."
- Cut to Han as he realizes this and the rest of the scene plays out normally

I never want to hear Han even suggest that a) he might be jealous and not completely trust Leia; and b) volunteer to "not get in the way." I mean this just threw away the great love story of the trilogy. Yads has it close, but a slightly more aggressive cut I think would work.


I quickly mocked this up with iMovie. Obviously the audio at least would need polishing.


Password: fanedit
 

Obi-Sock Kenobi

Active member
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
Trophy Points
6
On the OT.com forum I noticed people posting ebay links of the Star Wars Holiday Special for sale on DVD. I am always amazed at the creativity and attention to detail these bootlegs get on ebay. One is a VHS case dressed up in what looks like a Wookiee pelt cover: Are links to bootlegs allowed?
Unfortunately it already sold. Some of these look so nice I am almost tempted to buy them:

Are links to bootlegs allowed? I assume not.

Is it legal to buy them?

Last winter I managed to sit through the Star Wars Holiday Special all the way through for the first time and to be honest, I didn't think it was as bad as everyone was saying. Taking into consideration when this was made, people need to cut it some slack. For one thing, I don't know much about television broadcasting back in the '70s but I do know that it was heavily regulated before Ronald Reagan. TV stations had to be much more careful about what they broadcasted. They had to be family friendly and keep things politically correct. Of course there was the Wookie pleasure scene which contradicts that, but I digress. Anyways based on other televison I have seen from that era, it seems to fit right in. That was the way television was back then. It was all terrible.

I think they should have a Holiday Special Reboot for the cast of Star Wars Episode VII. Star Wars Episode VII sounds like the first real Star Wars Movie since ROTJ so I say we being them all back and have another Holiday Special new and improved, correcting the mistakes made in the original Holiday Special and bring in new material that works to make it something people want to see and enjoy. Have J.J. Abrams direct it. He knows what people want to see.
 

TV's Frink

You Catch On Pretty Quick
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
23,676
Reaction score
406
Trophy Points
193
Of course links to bootlegs are not allowed.
 

TM2YC

Take Me To Your Cinema
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
14,869
Reaction score
2,379
Trophy Points
228
Obi-Sock Kenobi said:
That was the way television was back then. It was all terrible.

Yeah...






^ Even Doctor Who doing a 70-second piss-take (From the same 1978 Christmas) had more effort and genuine humour put into it ;-).
 

Moe_Syzlak

Well-known member
Messages
3,450
Reaction score
1,161
Trophy Points
118
Has anyone read this "Ring Theory" essay?

http://www.starwarsringtheory.com/ring-composition-chiasmus-hidden-artistry-star-wars-prequels/

At best, it seems like an excuse for the prequels (and some of the less original ideas in Jedi). Much of it seems like a stretch to me in a similar way to how one can find meaning in Dark Side of the Oz. Ultimately, even if all of this is true and Lucas had this grand ambition from the start, it doesn't make the prequels good movies, even viewed in this context.
 

Gaith

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
5,785
Reaction score
291
Trophy Points
123
When you're using footnotes and direct quotes to respond to an RLM Plinkett review, well, that's about the time that I say -


letitgo.jpg


"Prequel apologists... prequel apologists... let it go."


:p
 

addiesin

Well-known member
Messages
5,887
Reaction score
1,502
Trophy Points
163
Moe_Syzlak said:
Has anyone read this "Ring Theory" essay?

http://www.starwarsringtheory.com/ring-composition-chiasmus-hidden-artistry-star-wars-prequels/

At best, it seems like an excuse for the prequels (and some of the less original ideas in Jedi). Much of it seems like a stretch to me in a similar way to how one can find meaning in Dark Side of the Oz. Ultimately, even if all of this is true and Lucas had this grand ambition from the start, it doesn't make the prequels good movies, even viewed in this context.

I really wish you or the writer had said up front it is primarily written as a rebuttal to the RLM reviews (reviews which are favored higher than the films they analyse) because it's kind of just sad to write so much based on that. Aren't rebuttals supposed to be made in a comparable format to what is being rebutted? I think this person would be better off not spending all that time and money much on web space, a domain name, and a wordpress theme and an essay and instead, maybe, making a video review. It's a shame because generally I really enjoy fan theories in most forms but this was more like a disguised argument against something I already enjoy.

"Prequel apologists... prequel apologists... let it go."
Right on.
 

Moe_Syzlak

Well-known member
Messages
3,450
Reaction score
1,161
Trophy Points
118
addiesin said:
I really wish you or the writer had said up front it is primarily written as a rebuttal to the RLM reviews (reviews which are favored higher than the films they analyse) because it's kind of just sad to write so much based on that. Aren't rebuttals supposed to be made in a comparable format to what is being rebutted? I think this person would be better off not spending all that time and money much on web space, a domain name, and a wordpress theme and an essay and instead, maybe, making a video review. It's a shame because generally I really enjoy fan theories in most forms but this was more like a disguised argument against something I already enjoy.


Right on.
While I said in my original post that it is a stretch at best, I don't think referencing RLM a few times makes it a rebuttal. RLM is simply the most widely known critique and I think this author is merely using it as a stand in for ALL prequel criticism. The point, however labored, is that the prequels have this ring theory built into them in the same way they have the Hero's Journey built in. Again, I find that a stretch and even if true doesn't make them good movies. But it's hardly the point for point rebuttal of RLM as has been posted around here before. He's attempting to make the same kind of academic argument for the prequel trilogy (and by extension the overall six film arc) that others made for the OT and its use if the Hero's Journey. The problem is simply noting it doesn't make it meaningful. Star Wars resonated deeply across generations, nationalites, religious backgrounds, etc. Academic studies as to why that might be are therfore legitimate. The prequels had no such resonance so, even if all this is true, what's the point.

BTW, I, too, enjoy the RLM reviews more than the actual films.
 

addiesin

Well-known member
Messages
5,887
Reaction score
1,502
Trophy Points
163
Moe_Syzlak said:
While I said in my original post that it is a stretch at best, I don't think referencing RLM a few times makes it a rebuttal. RLM is simply the most widely known critique and I think this author is merely using it as a stand in for ALL prequel criticism. The point, however labored, is that the prequels have this ring theory built into them in the same way they have the Hero's Journey built in. Again, I find that a stretch and even if true doesn't make them good movies. But it's hardly the point for point rebuttal of RLM as has been posted around here before. He's attempting to make the same kind of academic argument for the prequel trilogy (and by extension the overall six film arc) that others made for the OT and its use if the Hero's Journey. The problem is simply noting it doesn't make it meaningful. Star Wars resonated deeply across generations, nationalites, religious backgrounds, etc. Academic studies as to why that might be are therfore legitimate. The prequels had no such resonance so, even if all this is true, what's the point.

BTW, I, too, enjoy the RLM reviews more than the actual films.

Good points. Everything you say here is true. Sorry I implied you agreed with or had a hand in the theory/rebuttal, I didn't mean to. I'm glad to have seen it anyway, because even if it is sorta wrong and pointless, it's interesting for sure. :)
Somewhere out there people like those films (the prequels, uncut, as-is) in a genuine kind of way. I'll never understand it but will always be intrigued by it.
 

TomH1138

Well-known member
Messages
2,819
Reaction score
43
Trophy Points
53
A blogger has a fascinating theory on how and why Padme really died in RotS.

http://www.retrozap.com/padme-didnt-die-of-a-broken-heart/

It's a pretty brilliant theory, and one that I had never thought of before. If and when I ever finish my prequel edits, I think I'll try to keep this interpretation possible.

However, I don't think George was smart enough to think of it himself. In the first place, I watched some of AotC (an edit, of course) after reading this, and GL's lack of fundamental understanding of how to tell a story suggests to me that he didn't come up with this idea. He's not a moron or a monster, and in fact, he used to be able to tell strong stories in the past. I don't know for sure what happened, but it doesn't seem like Modern George Lucas would have come up with this.

Secondly, considering all the criticism that this scene has received, you'd think GL would have said something himself to answer his critics if this was what he meant (the way he explained that Anakin/Vader "balanced" the Force when he killed the Emperor in RotJ. As hard as it is for me to accept that idea, we can at least know for certain that this was his story intent).
 

hebrides

Well-known member
Cover Artist
Messages
3,434
Reaction score
0
Trophy Points
46
Not sure what the best thread would be to post this, so I figured I'd go with the main/general one:

I'm contemplating working on a short (vaguely) ROTS-related clip, and I'm looking for a hi-res version of this concept art to use as an insert:

Screen_shot_2015_03_22_at_12_10_36_AM.png


Any suggestions?

ETA: Still interested in suggestions, but I may have come up with an alternative that may work in a pinch.
 

TV's Frink

You Catch On Pretty Quick
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
23,676
Reaction score
406
Trophy Points
193
heb, you are a weirdo in the best way possible.
 
Top Bottom