Slashdot Mirror

Caveat: I am not, specifically, claiming that U.Waterloo is better than, say, MIT or Berkeley. I am just pointing out that comparing MIT or Berkeley to Waterloo is a non-stupid question, while comparing WLU to any school you've heard of (other than maybe Faber College :) is silly.

Get a real degree, then your question will be meaningful.

the Geoge Lucas of the 70's knew about pacing

Bullshit.

Lucas has had one or two fluke successes as a director. Other than that, he does not know how to direct. Pacing doesn't have much to do with writing, which GL did for all the SW flicks, more so with directing and editing.

Bonus Question: What films did GL direct between Episode 4 and Episode 1?
Answer: Not a goddamned one.

the Geoge Lucas of the 70's knew about pacing

Bullshit.

Lucas has had one or two fluke successes as a director. Other than that, he does not know how to direct. Pacing doesn't have much to do with writing, which GL did for all the SW flicks, more so with directing and editing.

Bonus Question: What films did GL direct between Episode 4 and Episode 1?
Answer: Not a goddamned one.

And don't forget that, as Silent Bob, he used The Force in the climactic scene of Mallrats.

Jersey Girl, on the other hand, is a crime against humanity. If you haven't seen it, count yourself very lucky.

Is he someone who'se opinion we trust.

http://imdb.com/title/tt0120053/plotsummary

--
Evan

You would know that it was edited in some fashion,

If you, to take my example again, remove the rape scene from Monster, you end up with an entirely different film, one that would almost certainly be at odds with what Patty Jenkins was trying to do. A person watching this may be aware that edits have occurred, but they wouldn't know the entire film's message had been changed through the use of such edits. They've taken the effort to get what they believe is a "clean" version of a movie, and ended up with an entirely different movie. A movie that's still almost certainly attributed, thanks to the slimeballs behind this bill, to Ms Jenkins.

Monster is a great example because it contains exactly the kinds of scenes that a puritanical group would want removed, it has a message the same people would be hostile to, and it's increadibly easy to manipulate, by the removal of key scenes (key scenes that by themselves are clearly "removable" according to the group's agenda in that they're violent and involve sexual imagery or nudity), the movie to mean something entirely counter to its original message.

Of course, I know this argument washes over you because you believe it should boil down to the money ("...with regards to what aspect of authors we use in incentivizing them to create, we use their greed. Copyright is utilitarian; it's economic. It's inappropriate to entertain silly notions of some sort of romanticized kind of authorship.") Like I said, your values are not my values. Which is probably a good thing, because I'd probably do some creative editing on what you've written and attribute it to you, 'cos that's entirely moral innit, I mean, you did write whatever it was I edited, so it's totally fair for me to attribute it to you, right? Not like it costs you money...)

At any rate, it's no more objectionable than any other kind of self-chosen filtering system.

For example, now we can all filter out Jar-Jar from the Star Wars movies. Try and tell me that that's a bad thing.

Now, the funny thing is, Lucas has always been very open about these things in the past and generally has given consent to all manner of community/non-profit derivations of his work. He's a big fan of fan-fiction and been happy for the stuff to be set in the Star Wars universe. He ended up taking action against The Phantom Edit, but only when it became clear people were downloading the thing in favour of going out and buying copies of the real deal. So Lucas is a poor example for anyone defending this bill to give. Lucas doesn't need to be compelled to consent to most, reasonable, edits.

Did you, by any chance, attend Pacific Tech?

Sequels would be nice, but... (Score:1)
by kronocide (209440) on Wednesday April 27, @09:02AM (#12357953)

What I really want is the series back. The kind of character and story development you can do in movies is so limited compared to a TV series. There is no way it'll be the same. And anyway, I'd like to see the story continued from where the series left off.

And did anyone else think that the black bad guy in the trailer seemed a lot less impressive than the bad guy (on whom I suppose the movie one was based) from Objects In Space?

What makes you think that Chiwetel Ejiofor's character is based on on Jubal Early (Richard Brooks)? Because they're both black?

To the guy who thinks that Ejiofor "should be presenting kids TV :-/," run, don't walk to the video store and get Dirty Pretty Things. Audrey Tautou was given top-billing in the United States simply because American audiences were familiar with her from Amelie , but Ejiofar is the star of the movie.

As I recall, Jubal Early was a bounty hunter, not a soldier. And he was left to die in space at the end of the series. The chances of him being rescued were infinitesimally small, unless Zaphod and Trillian happened to engage the infinite-improbability drive at the right moment.

Sequels would be nice, but... (Score:1)
by kronocide (209440) on Wednesday April 27, @09:02AM (#12357953)

What I really want is the series back. The kind of character and story development you can do in movies is so limited compared to a TV series. There is no way it'll be the same. And anyway, I'd like to see the story continued from where the series left off.

And did anyone else think that the black bad guy in the trailer seemed a lot less impressive than the bad guy (on whom I suppose the movie one was based) from Objects In Space?

What makes you think that Chiwetel Ejiofor's character is based on on Jubal Early (Richard Brooks)? Because they're both black?

To the guy who thinks that Ejiofor "should be presenting kids TV :-/," run, don't walk to the video store and get Dirty Pretty Things. Audrey Tautou was given top-billing in the United States simply because American audiences were familiar with her from Amelie , but Ejiofar is the star of the movie.

As I recall, Jubal Early was a bounty hunter, not a soldier. And he was left to die in space at the end of the series. The chances of him being rescued were infinitesimally small, unless Zaphod and Trillian happened to engage the infinite-improbability drive at the right moment.

Sequels would be nice, but... (Score:1)
by kronocide (209440) on Wednesday April 27, @09:02AM (#12357953)

What I really want is the series back. The kind of character and story development you can do in movies is so limited compared to a TV series. There is no way it'll be the same. And anyway, I'd like to see the story continued from where the series left off.

And did anyone else think that the black bad guy in the trailer seemed a lot less impressive than the bad guy (on whom I suppose the movie one was based) from Objects In Space?

What makes you think that Chiwetel Ejiofor's character is based on on Jubal Early (Richard Brooks)? Because they're both black?

To the guy who thinks that Ejiofor "should be presenting kids TV :-/," run, don't walk to the video store and get Dirty Pretty Things. Audrey Tautou was given top-billing in the United States simply because American audiences were familiar with her from Amelie , but Ejiofar is the star of the movie.

As I recall, Jubal Early was a bounty hunter, not a soldier. And he was left to die in space at the end of the series. The chances of him being rescued were infinitesimally small, unless Zaphod and Trillian happened to engage the infinite-improbability drive at the right moment.

Sequels would be nice, but... (Score:1)
by kronocide (209440) on Wednesday April 27, @09:02AM (#12357953)

What I really want is the series back. The kind of character and story development you can do in movies is so limited compared to a TV series. There is no way it'll be the same. And anyway, I'd like to see the story continued from where the series left off.

And did anyone else think that the black bad guy in the trailer seemed a lot less impressive than the bad guy (on whom I suppose the movie one was based) from Objects In Space?

What makes you think that Chiwetel Ejiofor's character is based on on Jubal Early (Richard Brooks)? Because they're both black?

To the guy who thinks that Ejiofor "should be presenting kids TV :-/," run, don't walk to the video store and get Dirty Pretty Things. Audrey Tautou was given top-billing in the United States simply because American audiences were familiar with her from Amelie , but Ejiofar is the star of the movie.

As I recall, Jubal Early was a bounty hunter, not a soldier. And he was left to die in space at the end of the series. The chances of him being rescued were infinitesimally small, unless Zaphod and Trillian happened to engage the infinite-improbability drive at the right moment.

Because of emerge, it's notorious for being simple to maintain.

Notorious

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

It's from Airplane!

Shouldn't that be Corinthians, 19th book?

I prefer Total Recall.

The Show More recommendations link is more disturbing. It shows the Star Wars Holiday Special.

Yes, Red Planet sucked, but Mission to Mars (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0183523/) was awesome!

These movies are certainly better that Red Planet.

Apple makes CHUDs? We're all doomed.

Black Hawk Down? He should watch Salò o le 120 giornate di Sodoma (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073650/).

...at least according to IMDB.
http://imdb.com/title/tt0379786/

You're probably refering to the Austrailian documentary Cane Toads.

http://imdb.com/title/tt0130529/

There must be a Scanner in the area practicing. If I lived near there, I think I'd move away quickly!

I think maybe I know.

With all the "This movie is going to rape the book!" talk going on here, I hope the following is only half serious: From the IMDB page...

"Recommendations

If you like this title, we also recommend...

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)"

*cough*

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooo!

If it makes money, the chances of making at least one of the other books into a movie increases.

Even the crappy Dungeons and Dragons movie gets a sequel because it made a profit.

As Bubba Ho-Tep has shown, the rest home can be an excellent setting for a pulp adventure story.

You mean like Howard the Duck?

(Still one of my favorites, even if Lucas never admits to working on it.)

Don't be to quick to consider it 'shelved'.
This is like the 6th time its happened.
Check out the realted forum to see that it's up again.

Ask and you shall receive: http://imdb.com/title/tt0367882/

You liked Episode 2 ??

Even with less Jar Jar compared to Ep1, and an ass-kicking Yoda ( admit it, you always knew he could do that stuff, and yea, I thought it was cool ), it'd be hard for anything to make up for the truly painful dialog scenes with Anakin and Padame. Man, that sucked... there were a good 10-20 minutes that could have been chopped out of that movie and it would have been much easier to take.

Then again, I have a much higher tolerance for stupid, goofy, childish characters than for stupid, sappy, poorly done 'serious adult' characters. I didn't mind Ewoks and Jar Jar near as much as I hated Anikin and Padame in Episode 2. Goofy I can handle; serious, boring and bad just sucks. Which brings out the point that everyone is a critic, each of us with our own personal bias.

The first Star Wars movie hit a nerve with it's classic storyline and ( then ) modern effects-laden futuristic setting. American Graffiti was a cool, focused cultural coming-of-age piece. Indiana Jones was a neat, action-packed flick. These are the three cool things George Lucas ever did ( with possible partial credit for Willow ), and he went on to remake and milk them for all they were worth and more. You can't look to the guy to do consitient, high-quality work that's true to the original, that's not his track record. Which is where you're being insightful when you say :

So... in answer to your question, we're being negative because we cannot imagine that Lucas is going to spin off a show worth watching. It's really that simple.

There is no reason for us to think it's not going to possibly suck, whatever spin-offs Lucas has planned. There's always hope if someone good is involved, like Gendy Tartovsky ( that guy is brilliant, clearly. Just watch enough of Dexter's Laboratory and Samari Jack, you'll see... ) but left on his own, Lucas is perfectly able to happily churn out painful-to-view junk. There's always hope, but it's small, and mostly related to Lucas finding a good director/co-producer and letting them do most of the real work.

You liked Episode 2 ??

Even with less Jar Jar compared to Ep1, and an ass-kicking Yoda ( admit it, you always knew he could do that stuff, and yea, I thought it was cool ), it'd be hard for anything to make up for the truly painful dialog scenes with Anakin and Padame. Man, that sucked... there were a good 10-20 minutes that could have been chopped out of that movie and it would have been much easier to take.

Then again, I have a much higher tolerance for stupid, goofy, childish characters than for stupid, sappy, poorly done 'serious adult' characters. I didn't mind Ewoks and Jar Jar near as much as I hated Anikin and Padame in Episode 2. Goofy I can handle; serious, boring and bad just sucks. Which brings out the point that everyone is a critic, each of us with our own personal bias.

The first Star Wars movie hit a nerve with it's classic storyline and ( then ) modern effects-laden futuristic setting. American Graffiti was a cool, focused cultural coming-of-age piece. Indiana Jones was a neat, action-packed flick. These are the three cool things George Lucas ever did ( with possible partial credit for Willow ), and he went on to remake and milk them for all they were worth and more. You can't look to the guy to do consitient, high-quality work that's true to the original, that's not his track record. Which is where you're being insightful when you say :

So... in answer to your question, we're being negative because we cannot imagine that Lucas is going to spin off a show worth watching. It's really that simple.

There is no reason for us to think it's not going to possibly suck, whatever spin-offs Lucas has planned. There's always hope if someone good is involved, like Gendy Tartovsky ( that guy is brilliant, clearly. Just watch enough of Dexter's Laboratory and Samari Jack, you'll see... ) but left on his own, Lucas is perfectly able to happily churn out painful-to-view junk. There's always hope, but it's small, and mostly related to Lucas finding a good director/co-producer and letting them do most of the real work.

"We've got no idea at all what a Star Wars TV series will be like"

How quickly we forget the ewok adventures - I for one shiver in my leather-like, authentic reproduction Obi Wan boot covers....

Must ... Reinvent ... Self ... ;-)

I thought you were talking about somebody else for a second there.

... why hasn't Lucas cashed in on the current cultural hardon for fantasy with a cleaned up re-release of WILLOW?

Seriously. Take the pre-composite footage of the confrontation with Bavmorda (sp?), replace with current effects technology, re-release. Instant club hit.

That, or Lucas can do what he did with Star Wars (the best of which he didn't direct) - write and direct a shitty prequel that totally taints the setting?

Oh, wait. He screwed that one over with a sequel. In book form, anyway.

Must ... Reinvent ... Self ... ;-)

Oh, man, how old are you ? :D It's from Guns'n'Roses' Civil War, "what we've got here is failure to communicate, some men you just can't reach" and so on.

And how old are you? Guns'n'Roses took the quote from that all-time classic movie, Cool Hand Luke.

Oh, man, how old are you?

That's a quote from _Cool Hand Luke_, from 1967.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061512/

it was from "cool hand luke"

the prison guard talking to/about paul newman

http://imdb.com/title/tt0061512/quotes

Indeed, some good fodder for movies back then, but a slap on the wrist. What behavioural change might one expect if some existing statutes were pulled into effect, such as child endangerment, contributing to the deliquency of a minor, etc, where parents don't keep up with what their kids have been doing on the computer?

Seems entirely reasonable that at some point someone will drag the kid away from the parents/home to be placed in some child welfare state. Legal experts opinions welcome.

Quantum Leap was an excellent TV show that ran through the late 80's and early 90's. The premise was that "Dr. Sam Becket" (who now plays Captain Archer on Enterprise) invented a time machine that would allow him to reach points throughout his lifetime. The problem is that he never quite got the kinks worked out of his retrieval program, and now finds himself randomly leaping from life to life. The tagline of the show was, "striving to put right what once went wrong and hoping each time that his next leap will be the leap home." (Usually then followed by us seeing him leaping into someone's life. Something utterly confusing then happens to him and he utters the words, "Oh boy".)

And now you know... the rest of the story.

That sounds like Serious research.

>> and a robotic paintball teammate

Be careful what you wish for... else we'll have these "paintball teammates" in a blink of an eye: pic
They'll infiltrate earth and become governors of themselves (pun intended :)

Are they affiliated with the United Appeal for the Dead?

THX-1134?

I'd rather call them transparently corrupt. How about a rubberstamp government, like those we lately seem to be suggesting oughta respect democratic principles, etc. (so long as they represent the right democratic principles, unlike all those heathen socialists in South America.)

I'm one of those old enough to remember quite a few of Richard M. Nixon's shenanigans and I'm absolutely amazed how much dirtier this administration is and profoundly disappointed that people just don't seem to care. Heck, if Nixon were still around he'd probably get a Presidential Medal of Freedom for spying on americans and his groundbreaking work on coverups. Small wonder Cheney's threatening to get tough with dems in the Senate, they see what's going on and the priorities of the administration.

On the way in this morning I heard a blurb about an upcoming film Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room and it got me thinking about what a hatchet job was done on California Governor Gray Davis (while I'm not a particularly huge fan of his) apparently to lay the foundation for a republican challenger to replace a disgraced democrat, while the Dept of Energy and the president sat on their hands.

Where is the sense of outrage? I dunno, pass me another beer.

Without Star Trek for a while we were in need of a 800 lb gorilla fucking up sci-fi, nice to see Lucas stepping up to the plate.