[civilian_number_two]

I agree with what folks say about the 10-minute flashback being fun in LAST CRUSADE. I disagree with Casual Fan that STAR WARS is more classic than RAIDERS. RAIDERS I think was as influential on adventure films as STAR WARS had been; it was certainly as important to me when it came out. Along with BLADERUNNER, it had me convinced that any film with Harrison Ford was going to be great. Ford quickly set me straight; while I liked WITNESS, it wasn't "important," and then when I saw HANNOVER STREET on tv and WORKING GIRL in the theatre, I realized Ford was just another working actor.

I would like to add two things that I think helped the flashback in LC, in addition to its brevity:

1) River Phoenix was convincing as a young Indiana Jones, and the sequence was fun. The two actors hired to play Young Darth Vader are NOT convincing (I saw the first 5 minutes of AOTC).

2) In reality, the flashback in LC didn't even set anything up, since it had nothing to do with the future story, apart from a character moment between Indy and his dad. The PT tried to explain the story of the later films, explanations that weren't necessary. This makes the flashback in LC "fun," anf the entire PT "boring."

[jariten]

In reason 17 Chef Elf writes:

"I refuse to believe that that is the case after spending the past six years seeing a baby Greedo, Chewbacca, the Tantive IV, Death Star plans and a ten year old Boba Fett. The only thing that surprises me is that the Millennium Falcon does not sweep across the foreground followed by a scene where a five-year-old Lando Calrissian loses the ship to a five-year-old Solo in a game of sabaac."

I watched Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade last night. That movie was written by George Lucas. The Last Crusade is the final Indiana Jones movie and the movie begins with a flashback of young Indy played by River Phoenix.

The reason I bring this up is that in about a 10 minute span of time Young Indy 1) develops his fear of snakes, 2) learns how to use a whip for the first time, 3) cuts his chin right where Harrison Ford has his scar, and 4) gains posession of his trademark hat.

I agree with Chef Elf that the constant "wouldn't it be neat" philosophy of the PT turns my stomach, but I did not have any problem with very similar things in Indiana Jones last night. I actually found myself thinking that these scenes were cool.

It made me think hard about my hatred for the PT. I have often considered that I saw Indiana Jones and the OT when I was young and George Lucas' style appealed to me and that when I rewatch them I remember that joy fondly and it isnt the actual movies that I am enjoying. Whereas, I saw the 3 PT movies when I was older and had no patience for Lucas pandering to the young.

Why am I only reading this now? That was great (and really raises a lot of the issues I have with some areas of PT hating).

And Chefelf (or anyone)- can you show me where "baby Greedo" is in the PT please?

My general take on the idea is this-
If you were reading a series of 6 interconnected novels, you would expect reoccuring characters. Watching it in sequence, seeing Jango, then a few films later seeing Boba, gives it that feeling.

He had opportunities to go to far with it (including the young Greedo or Han Solo or something stupid would have done that), but in the end he never did.

This post has been edited by jariten: 14 April 2006 - 07:06 PM

[Despondent]

"Baby Greedo" is the rodian we see with Annie's friends doing cute widdle moves like we saw with the Jabba's palace gang. You know, up until Jabba's Holes, just about everything regarding SW in the films was cool. Anyway, if one was watching the 6-film series hoping for the SW that I respect the most, they'd have long given up on the "Saga" by episode four.

"Youssa Somssin Ahnnie". He said something like that. And I understand there are other rodians in the vast SW galaxy. (I'm sure some are senators) Similarly, one of my earliest memories of the SW film was "look! there's a Silver C-3PO!" (and now we discover that one of the main characters in this film secretly INVENTED this LINE of protocol droids(?

Imagine going through Lord of the Rings, and then finding out that there's ANOTHER Lord of the Rings; set in the past of unquestionable length. Now, imagine it's the same Fellowship gang, nothing really mysterious here; but when they were a little younger. Merry "Spaz" Brandybuck, "Cavey" Gollum, the Dukes of Gondor. And that they were all related! Oh! You'll love this one- One of them can FLY!

Now that we've altered the canon a little, pay no attention to the Rankin-Bass LOTR Holiday Special, The Hobbit.

[Harmonica]

Imagine going through Lord of the Rings, and then finding out that there's ANOTHER Lord of the Rings; set in the past of unquestionable length. Now, imagine it's the same Fellowship gang, nothing really mysterious here; but when they were a little younger. Merry "Spaz" Brandybuck, "Cavey" Gollum, the Dukes of Gondor. And that they were all related! Oh! You'll love this one- One of them can FLY!

...Reading that just gave me a whole new degree of respect for The Silmarillion, simply because it A) is set in a time period before the birth of 99% of the characters of the Lord of the Rings B ) includes few ancestors of such characters and C) indicates that Tolkien realized that a world (much less, a universe of infinite worlds) is an enormous place and has a population of more than fifty people with two degrees of separation among them all.

This post has been edited by Harmonica: 14 April 2006 - 10:26 PM

[jariten]

"Baby Greedo" is the rodian we see with Annie's friends doing cute widdle moves like we saw with the Jabba's palace gang.

You mean Wald? You mean that character Wald, right?

and hes "Baby Greedo" how again?

and if hes not "Baby Greedo" (and I think i've just proved that he isn't), how did the poor guy end up in Chefs reasons to hate list?

[Despondent]

Wald, Fine. Never knew his name, never cared. the Perception was: lame. Never quite got past that part.

Would you care to enlighten us on his relationship to Greedo?

[jariten]

Wald, Fine. Never knew his name, never cared

Fine, but don't you think that's the kind of research that needs to be done before, oh I don't know, using it as more 'evidence' as to why the PT was bad?

[Harmonica]

Well, if anyone actually wants to see Greedo, there's a lovely little picture of him from the DVD being what is popularly known in Webspeak as "PWN'D!" by Anakin while Wald watches here.

And if you want to read about him in the actual movie script, you can look here and find the part that Chefelf included on his list.

The fact that people usually mistake Wald for Greedo doesn't change the fact that's he's still in the Prequels.

Sure, it's not in the 'actual' movie, but Lucas took the time to write Greedo into the script, make a costume/set/etc and film the scene, include him in the novelization, and place the scene in the DVD's scene library.

Besides, just wait until Lucas re-releases all six movies of the saga in special 3D vision (not a joke) and we see Star Wars: Episode I: The Phantom Menace with the scene restored in all its insane glory.

[jariten]

For Christs sake.

3 times, so it'll sink in.

1. GREEDO IS NOT IN ANY STAR WARS PREQUEL FILM.

2. GREEDO IS NOT IN ANY STAR WARS PREQUEL FILM.

3. GREEDO IS NOT IN ANY STAR WARS PREQUEL FILM.

But how can one compete with this logic?

Sure, it's not in the 'actual' movie

The fact that people usually mistake Wald for Greedo doesn't change the fact that's he's still in the Prequels.

You know what this is called?

Grabbing At Straws.

Time for bed.

This post has been edited by jariten: 15 April 2006 - 08:47 PM

[Harmonica]

I can count too, y'know. There are five things I love about your post.

I love how you ignored the fact that he is in the movie's script.

I love how you ignored the fact that Lucas built a set for the scene, had a costume made for the scene, paid people for the scene, choreographed and filmed the scene.

I love how you ignored the fact that he is the Lucas-approved novelization.

I love how you ignored the fact that the scene is official canon.

I love how you ignored the fact that it was one of the scenes that Lucas chose to include on the DVD when in fact there were several scenes that he did not.

I also love that since even though the scene was deleted solely for the purpose of running time, you assert that it does not count, without providing a single reason why that logic is so.

Oh, wait. That's six things.

You know what this is called?

Grabbing At Straws.

Ah, casual dismissal of valid points. I can't say that I didn't expect that, given the overall weakness of the argument "The scene was deleted!"

This post has been edited by Harmonica: 15 April 2006 - 09:27 PM

[jariten]

Actually, its not even included on the DVD deleted scenes, but apart from that I couldn't care less about any of that other stuff you mentioned.

Why?

Because its not in any of the films.

Listen, you even admitted that yourself.

And if its not in any of the films, why are we even discussing it?

Why are you working so hard to defend the obvious- Chefelf made a mistake in thinking Wald was Greedo

?

Hes not in the film and Lucas could have cut it for a million reasons, and your assumption about running time is purely hypothetical. If Lucas liked the scene and wanted it preserved, why not include it on the DVD?

There are millions of scenes cut from the scripts of millions of movies. Don't directors CUT scenes so that they WONT be in the film, and wont be considered PART of the film? Or is it (SHOCKER!) that you're making a special exception here in your desire to give Lucas an extra kick?

And none of this even addresses the obvious fact that-

GREEDO IS NOT IN ANY OF THE STAR WARS PREQUEL FILMS.

I can't believe this has gone on as long as it has.

Ah, casual dismissal of valid points. I can't say that I didn't expect that, given the overall weakness of the argument "The scene was deleted!"

Guy 1: Man, that movie was awesome!

Guy 2: No, it sucked! I can't believe that hack Lucas put baby greedo in there!

Guy 1: No man, that was Wald, it had his name in the credits and...

Guy 2: No, he was in there! Just wait 4 months until the Making Of book comes out and you can see one really small picture! I hate this movie because of something that doesnt exist in it that I believes exists even though it doesnt exist!

Guy 1: But if Lucasfilm had never released the original script and the making of book, we wouldnt have even known about this scene (I got a hunch it wont even be on the DVD). So isn't it just the obsessed with film filmmaker Lucas trying to give fans an insight into how ALL movies are put together?

Guy 2: Yeah, what a hack!

This post has been edited by jariten: 15 April 2006 - 09:51 PM

[Harmonica]

At least we're back to being civil.

Actually, its not even included on the DVD deleted scenes, but apart from that I couldn't care less about any of that other stuff you mentioned.

I apologize then. I was simply going by the website that I provided.

And if its not in any of the films, why are we even discussing it?

You said that "He[Lucas] had opportunities to go to far with it (including the young Greedo or Han Solo or something stupid would have done that), but in the end he never did."

I took from that that you were implying that Lucas was above even considering the use of something so silly as Greedo. Since, for some reason, you did not give any indication that you realized that Greedo was included in a deleted scene, and in fact asked the (rhetorical?) question of where Greedo was, it seemed like you were unaware of information that I felt like pointing it out. If you had instead said "Greedo is only in a deleted scene;Wald is the one everyone confuses with Greedo", I would not have continued the conversation.

Why are you working so hard to defend the obvious- Chefelf made a mistake in thinking Wald was Greedo

I'm not defending that. I never said I was. My main point was that Lucas was going to include it, and especially given that you specified the PT and not specifically the PT films, it was there. Particularly since I mistakenly thought it was on the DVD.

Hes not in the film and Lucas could have cut it for a million reasons, and your assumption about running time is purely hypothetical. If Lucas liked the scene and wanted it preserved, why not include it on the DVD?

I'll admit now that my belief was baseless, since I now realize that the webiste I was going off was wrong. However, your assertion that Lucas did not include the scene because he did not like it is no less hypothetical.

There are millions of scenes cut from the scripts of millions of movies. Don't directors CUT scenes so that they WONT be in the film, and wont be considered PART of the film? Or is it (SHOCKER!) that you're making a special exception here in your desire to give Lucas an extra kick?

Actually, most directors are typically required by their distributors to cut scenes to decrease running times. This is why no matter what movie you have, there will be DVDs. Some directors cut scenes that they feel deserve to be cut. Others are quite distraught to do so. Many deleted scenes actually explain what comes later on in movies, for instance the scene in Episode II where Obi-Wan analyzes the one saberdart and later makes reference to it, despite the scene being cut, or the part in Empire Strikes Back Special edition where Lucas has the scene of Darth Vader going to his ship. Given Lucas's history of including formerly deleted scenes in Special editions (Han's meeting with Jabba), in edition to his incessant establishing of "What is canon", I take the stance that his deleted scenes do count as part of the actual films.

Guy 1: Man, that movie was awesome!

Guy 2: No, it sucked! I can't believe that hack Lucas put baby greedo in there!

Guy 1: No man, that was Wald, it had his name in the credits and...

Guy 2: No, he was in there! Just wait 4 months until the Making Of book comes out and you can see one really small picture! I hate this movie because of something that doesnt exist in it that I believes exists even though it doesnt exist!

Guy 1: But if Lucasfilm had never released the original script and the making of book, we wouldnt have even known about this scene (I got a hunch it wont even be on the DVD). So isn't it just the obsessed with film filmmaker Lucas trying to give fans an insight into how ALL movies are put together?

Guy 2: Yeah, what a hack!

The fact that people confuse Greedo with Wald has nothing to due with whether or not a deleted scene counts as part of the movie. I don't see why you keep trying to argue that.

This post has been edited by Harmonica: 15 April 2006 - 10:10 PM

[diligent_d]

You can watch the scene here:

http://www.starwarz....n_fistfight.htm

And don't you just love Wald's great line at the end:

Wald
"Keep this up, Greedo, and you're gonna come to a bad end."

[jariten]

I took from that that you were implying that Lucas was above even considering the use of something so silly as Greedo. Since, for some reason, you did not give any indication that you realized that Greedo was included in a deleted scene, and in fact asked the (rhetorical?) question of where Greedo was, it seemed like you were unaware of information that I felt like pointing it out. If you had instead said "Greedo is only in a deleted scene;Wald is the one everyone confuses with Greedo", I would not have continued the conversation.

Ah ha! This is what crossed wires can lead to.

Still though, back to the plot. It's my contention then, that Chef shouldn't have included the "Baby Greedo" bit in any of his reasons to hate lists, because of the simple fact that he isn't in any of the PT films.

Yes? No?

[Harmonica]

If we're talking about Chefelf's entry itself, I agree with you 100%, especially since he makes it sound as though he did not believe that Anakin's friend was Greedo until he read the script that confirmed it, which of course said nothing of the sort.

Edit: Though, now I am confused as to whether the scene made it to the DVD, given that now I've seen two websites saying it did.

I guess this is what I get for not buying 'em.

This post has been edited by Harmonica: 15 April 2006 - 10:42 PM