RD1973

Maybe fanboy is the wrong term. But I'm talking about internet punks who call Spielberg, Lucas, Cameron, Jackson, Raimi, etc. hacks. I mean, if it was Kubrick saying that, I guess I'd keep my mouth shut. But some douche thats never accomplished anything. Its just annoying.

Travis McClain

Here. I'll say it: A fanboy is someone who confuses what he thinks "should have been" for what "could have been."

Nesbit

Why are you on a message board if you don't want to hear people's opinions?

Travis McClain

Most people--and I'm sure this has at times included myself, though I'd like to believe I've gotten away from it--come to a message board to find out the latest news about a topic that interests him or her, and then share his or her opinion about that news. Hearing other people express their thoughts is really more of a secondary activity.

To be fair, most Internet opinions consist of hyperbole and eventually reach a meaningless level of "FTW"/"QFT" or "Fail." It's hard to really cultivate insightful discourse that way. Trying to discuss Star Wars without someone either insisting that George Lucas is "destroying his childhood" or that fans are self-sacrificing sheep of some kind is about as easy as discussing politics without Adolf Hitler's name making an appearance.

Somewhere in all this, there's a magnificent sociology paper waiting to be written.

Jay G.

So you feel these directors are above reproach, and if anyone dislikes one of these directors, or even just some of their films, that opinion isn't valid?


The idea that only a master of an artform (or even just someone who's made art) can criticize said art is an old argument, and wrong. There's a difference between creating and consuming, and one not need to be able to create to have an opinion on what's offered. For example, I may not know how to cook a lot of dishes, but I can easily tell if one tastes bad (or gives me food poisoning), and am within my rights to complain.

Also, by making that argument, you're basically dismissing your own opinion of films, since you're not Kubrick either. If you truly believe that argument, you should stop posting your opinions of films, or of anything, until you've mastered making them yourself.

I don't get this. If you don't like something, obviously you start to examine why you don't like it. When you pinpoint something specifically wrong, you naturally start thinking about how it "could" have been different to suit your own tastes. And since your own opinion is what matters most to you, you naturally think it "should" have been different.

I don't see how this "could vs should" argument doesn't apply to nearly all negative opinions.

Travis McClain

Well put. Look at how many pro sports analysts there are whose playing career ended sometime in high school. Granted, like all talking heads on TV, there are quite a lot of vapid blusterers, but there are some genuinely insightful people in the field, too.

"Could have" suggests a "What if?" scenario, in which potential variations of a work are considered. "Should have" suggests a sense of entitlement to pass judgment on someone else's work in which the work could only be "improved" by incorporating your own ideas. Does that help?

Jay G.

Not really. What is an opinion, positive or negative, but passing judgment? If I think the prequels suck, that's passing judgment.

You seem to be making a distinction between someone saying something like "Jake Llyod's acting sucked in TPM" and the natural followup to that, "they should've hired someone else to play the role." (note that this is just an example, I don't necessarily think the fault lies entirely with Jake Llyod). I don't see how one phrase is more judgmental than the other.

RD1973

Like MinLShaw said, I come for the news, not the lame opinions. And you can express your opinions all your want. I'm just expressing my opinion of certain peoples' opinions.

RD1973

I came across a quote some time ago (I can't remember who said it). "In Europe, they remember you for what you've done. In America, they remember you for what you've done lately." I don't know about the first part, but the second is so true and pretty much sums up what I'm trying to say.

Also, all the crazy shit people say here comes across as really cowardly. I'm sure you wouldn't say it to Lucas' face. This is why Shia Whatever came across like a douche for trashing Indy IV a YEAR after it came out. I would have really respected him if he had spoken up DURING FILMING.

Travis McClain

I've spent a while today thinking this over. We're in the realm of semantics, but because I've enjoyed the discussion so far I'm reluctant to simply abandon it. I thought further and I think I would revise my remarks to liken a fanboy to the sports fan who refers to his or her favorite team in the first person plural (i.e., "We won").

At first glance, there's not much offense to be found there. But a fanboy-level complaint gets into things like, "We overpaid for this player" or "We should never have made that trade." It strikes me--and I freely admit I may be entirely all by myself in this--that there reaches a level of presumption, or of false ownership, that such a person has that qualifies him as a fanboy.

I'm not sure that this helps refine my remarks or develop the discussion any more than my previous attempts, but I think if you keep nudging me I'll eventually stumble upon the right way to express it.

To clarify, I did not intend to endorse that approach. It seems that there are plenty of other venues for finding out news if that's all you seek. I don't mean to sound as though I'm passing judgment; I just know that the reason I love this forum so much is that I've often found other members willing to explore a conversational topic here, whereas most message boards quickly devolve into the banal, "FTW" or "Fail" type remarks that don't really inspire any meaningful discussion.

RD1973

I guess I didn't use enough emphasis:

Like MinLShaw said, I come for the news, not lame opinions. And you can express your opinions all your want. I'm just expressing my opinion of certain peoples' opinions.

Travis McClain

In fairness to Shia LaBoef, no one really knows how the film they're working on will really come together until they see the final cut. I'm sure being on the set with Steven Spielberg and Harrison Ford was quite reassuring. I have an almost religious admiration for the craft of writing, and I think it's terribly misguided to think that one can really tell from a script whether a movie will work or not. Film is such a collaborative medium that the story evolves literally every day, from the choices of a costume designer in pre-production to the final sound mix in post-production. LaBoef would have to be clairvoyant to know, during production, how the film would ultimately be.

And even if he had cause to suspect things weren't working, what's he going to do? Get into a power play with Steven Spielberg and George Lucas? Even if it didn't violate some clause in his contract leaving him open to litigation, it would be career suicide.

As for the more generalized, "cowardly" nature of remarks posted online, I more or less agree with you that most people are emboldened by the anonymity of the Internet. That said, I think it's a lot like talking with someone who is under the influence; without their normal inhibitions, you're getting their unfiltered thoughts. People who, in real life, would smile pleasantly at George Lucas go online and insist he's retroactively destroying their childhood. Which behavior is truer? Does there not come a point where honesty is more valuable than courage?

RD1973

I would even have respected him if he had made his comments a month after release. But a year later? I wonder how long it will be before he trashes Wall Street 2.

Also, even if some fanboy had the balls to go off on a rant in Lucas' face, I think he'd realize pretty quickly how ridiculous he sounds (at least I hope he would).

Travis McClain

What about when Bill Murray was quoted earlier this year saying Garfield was a mistake, several years after the fact (and after joking about it in Zombieland last year)? I get what you're saying, but I think there also has to be an allowance for the growth of the young (LaBoef is a movie star right now, still working on evolving into an actor; much like DiCaprio prior to 2002).

I got into a spat on the Star Trek message board last year with an author, and another fan felt the need to tell me that if the author was a Klingon, he would cut me in half with his bat'leth. Strangest thing I've ever been told, I swear to God, and the only way it would have been better is if the author himself had been the one to say it. There's a point where some people aren't interested in discourse or honesty; they just want to express themselves. Sometimes they don't care if anyone reacts, and sometimes they express themselves just for the sake of provoking a reaction. Once that point has been reached, there's little reason to continue participating. (I personally believe that bat'leth violence is an indication you've reached that point.)

That's the beauty of the Internet: those who are so quick to run their mouth behind a screen name can easily be avoided or filtered out of your browsing experience altogether. Much easier than real life, where you sometimes have to sit through dinner with someone who won't shut the hell up.

RocShemp

So, given even the prequels changed (albeit slightly) from their theatrical counterparts to their DVD releases, what other changes do you suppose Lucas will sneak in this 3D re-release? That digital Yoda they were testing out for Episode I, perhaps?

Oh and...
<iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/12892083" width="400" height="178" frameborder="0"></iframe>

AT-AT day afternoon from Patrick Boivin on Vimeo.

AnonomusBob15

Not sure but you can pretty much guarantee there will be more changes.

I love Star Wars. I even like the Special Editions and the Prequels. Granted, my most watched are the Original Trilogy films in their original theatrical presentation. Because they were never released anamorphically, i've had to succomb to bootlegs. I refuse to watch a non-anamorphic disc.


That said, I will probably see the 3D films. Attack of the Clones is my least favorite so bring on TPM.

Travis McClain

Yoda's a given, I would think. The other thing I keep expecting is for at least one of the filmed deaths of Shaak-Ti to find its way into Revenge of the Sith, altered somehow to show instead a canonical death for Ahsoka Tano (or however that's spelled). I don't think it's a coincidence that they shot two different death scenes for that character, used neither of them in the film and then created a new key character that bears at least a passing resemblance for The Clone Wars. But, then, for all I know Return of the Jedi will now end with Hayden Christensen and Ewan McGregor, and the dancing Yoda Easter egg clip.

TGM

this new "Greedo shoots first" loving Lucas doesn't have the balls to kill off Ahsoka on screen. her fate will likely never be known, and if it is is, guaranteed she'd be off in exile somewhere like Yoda, and not actually dead.

Mabuse

That AT-AT thing is amazing. How did they make it run? I can't figure that out.

Jason

There's a short making-of on vimeo

<iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/13135717" width="400" height="225" frameborder="0"></iframe>

Making of AT-AT day afternoon from Patrick Boivin on Vimeo.

Very clever.

DGibFen

Official release date for The Phantom Menace 3-D is Feb. 10, 2012.



http://www.deadline.com/2011/03/3d-s...ruary-10-2012/

LosingMyMind

Eleven months and sevens days to go

georgec

I shudder to think how many people who have bashed the prequels (rightfully so) will still go back to Lucas, give them his money, and suck his flannel nipple for feeding them the same crap over and over and over again.

Boycott this.

Solid Snake

And yet it's IMPOSSIBLE for him to just fix the "regular" versions...amazing. I've never even SEEN the originals in anamorphic.

devilshalo

Fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice, shame on you.

As the lyrics Roger Daltry sing go, "I won't be fooled again. No, no!"