>>31877

It's true that Attack of the Clones is much worse than Phantom Menace, but that doesn't excuse how awful Phantom Menace actually is. I mean, they're both rancid compared to the original trilogy, even to somebody who barely cares about Star Wars like me.

But at least we got Rogue Squadron (even though it's technically more related to A New Hope and Empire) and Pod Racing on the N64 and Jedi Power Battles on the PSX out of Phantom Menace. The fuck did Attack of the Clones give us, besides a bad taste in our mouths?

>>31967
>The fuck did Attack of the Clones give us
This guy we all forgot about!

WHAT IF "STAR WARS: EPISODE I"…

...This is actually a really good idea.

>>31970
I WANT THAT MOVIE. I WANT IT BAD.

>>31967
I don't understand why N64 pod racing is consistently listed as a good thing about Phantom Menace. It's one of the most awful, broken racers of all time.

>>31971
I remember the other movie idea I liked was based on a joke on how they thought Obi-wan was Anakin at the start of episode 1 and that could have worked. Anakin getting shat on as being "too old" and Liam Obi-wan coming to his defense and Palpatine being one of the few people in the government that will give him a fare shake that doesn't dismiss him as a wanna be Jedi or something.

>>31970

If only we could make this happen... if only...

>>31978

One of the things I'm somewhat DREADING but also somewhat hoping for is Geroge's inevitable death and what will happen to the properties once he's no longer the sole voice of God for the Star Wars universe.

At worst? REBOOT THE ENTIRE MOVIE WITH B-LIST CELEBRITIES PLAYING HAN, LUKE AND LEIA. At best? A re-doing of the prequels films... but better.

>>31982

I'd say the latter has a high chance of occurrence given the growing number of 20-30 somethings coming into the Media with a mighty rage boner toward the prequels and their sacrilege of the material.

>>31970
Turns out he did survive, robot legs.

>>31983

The problem there might very well be that any reboot prequel films we get might start to feel more like "FUCK YOU"'s to George Lucas than films that should actually be told of the Star Wars universe.

Fan-pandering was one of the reasons the films admittedly sucked. It'd be bad form to be given another chance at doing GOOD THINGS with the Star Wars universe and then abuse that just to appeal to all the angry neckbeards who're raging on Lucas.

>>31986
I see some mad enough to bankroll something to erase the blight on the collective memory but with enough sense of what make the first three great to allow for those that understand the creative process that made the first three what they were to do their duty and collectively create something that isn't Lucas and his strange pander to the children ideal.

>>31987
"Strange pander to the children ideal"? Dude, Star Wars was made for everyone. You need to be able to attract kids in order to keep the blood flowing in the fan base, not lock it away for the select generation that grew up with the first three at a certain time period. If George was more concerned about pandering to the children of 1999 he would have removed the pointless politics points entirely.

The problem was that he was pandering to himself and acting like that was pandering towards the established nerd armada of Star Wars. He was too focused in the idea that his creative vision is exactly what people wanted to be able to listen to any cohesive criticism that wasn't STAR WARS IS OVER, JARR-JARR IS TERRIBLE, YOU CAN'T DIRECT FOR SHIT ANYMORE; or other common internet vitriol about the prequels.

>>31994
Writing things for children is different from pandering to children. The original Star Wars was written for children, too, but it didn't pander to them.

>>31997
No? Then what are C3P0 and R2D2?

>>31998
His versions of the comic relief peasant sidekicks from a Kurosawa film. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hidden_Fortress

>>31999
Um, no. 3PO and D2 are the Greek Chorus.

Both comic relief and greek chorus.

They're Timone and Pumba, Guildenstern and Rosencrantz, etc, etc...

>>32009
As true as that is, Lucas admitted to the influence/inspiration.

http://ralphmcquarrie.com/

Dammit Death..STOP THAT.

>>32088
I'm surprised how sad I am.

>>31999
This is actually pretty much true. Yes, the character archetypes are inspired by the Greek chorus, but the particular characterizations of R2 and 3PO are very much based on the two peasants. And it doesn't really end there, either - you can take the entire basic structure of Star Wars (that is, the original movie) back to Kurosawa's film, from the peasants being captured and forced into slave work to the menacing general clad all in black to the hidden fortress itself. The entire original film is essentially a remake of The Hidden Fortress, in all honesty. Well, a remake of The Hidden Fortress and Flash Gordon Conquers The Universe.

>>32088
R.I.P. :(

>>32090

If we're calling A New Hope a remake of The Hidden Fortress then the word "remake" has lot all meaning.

>>32092

It's as much a "remake", as Naruto is a remake of HunterXHunter. Yes, the story as a whole is not the same, but break it down into it's constituited pieces (characters, plots, themes, tones) and you can see everything is more-or-less copied. It would be as if Picasso cut the Mona Lisa into small pieces and assembled them mosaic-style into Guernica.

>>32094

>but break it down into it's constituited pieces (characters, plots, themes, tones) and you can see everything is more-or-less copied.

That's so dumb it gave me a migraine.

I'm out.

>>32090
>>32094
Line up boy, tis time for yer lashin'.

>>32094
>It's as much a "remake", as Naruto is a remake of HunterXHunter. Yes, the story as a whole is not the same, but break it down into it's constituited pieces (characters, plots, themes, tones) and you can see everything is more-or-less copied.

Not...not really.

>>32090
>>32094

Okay, yeah, A New Hope is not a remake of Hidden Fortress. Like, if you're really stretching it, I can see where you're picking up some similarities, but the two end products are drastically different and unrelated.

Stars Wars itself isn't super-realistic, what with borrowing elements of Arthurian legend, Medieval Knights, Samurai, Pulp, and a nice portion of the standard hero's journey, but Hidden Fortress is not a source.

>>32107
>Okay, yeah, A New Hope is not a remake of Hidden Fortress. Like, if you're really stretching it, I can see where you're picking up some similarities, but the two end products are drastically different and unrelated.
As are The Magnificent Seven and A Bug's Life, as remakes of Seven Samurai.
As is A Fistful Of Dollars, as a remake of Yojimbo.
As if John Carpenter's The Thing, as a remake of the original 1950's version of The Thing From Another World.
As is Avatar as a remake of Dances With Wolves, and as is Dances With Wolves as a remake of Broken Arrow.
Just because two incarnations are different in numerous ways in their style, subject, and content doesn't mean one is not a remake of the other.

>Stars Wars itself isn't super-realistic, what with borrowing elements of Arthurian legend, Medieval Knights, Samurai, Pulp, and a nice portion of the standard hero's journey, but Hidden Fortress is not a source.
But it is. Lucas has even said this before in biographies and concept books and other early merchandise media. Yes, Star Wars has many sources and inspirations, and The Hidden Fortress is definitely one of them.

>>32112
>As if John Carpenter's The Thing, as a remake of the original 1950's version of The Thing From Another World.

I've just gotta interject a bit here:

John Carpenter's The Thing was actually a much more faithful adaptation of the original sci-fi novella "Who Goes There?", rather than a remake of the 1951 movie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Goes_There%3F
http://www.whogoesthere.info/download.php

>>32123
This is true. That was perhaps a bad example.

>Just because two incarnations are different in numerous ways in their style, subject, and content doesn't mean one is not a remake of the other.

The word you are looking for is influence. films from the past influence later films. This does not make the later films remakes of the previous ones.

Ocean's Eleven is a remake. The Amityville Horror is a remake. My Bloody Valentine is a remake. These are retellings of the same story. When you start to include movies that have "similar" broad elements, you stretch the meaning of the word "remake" to the point where it no longer has any meaning at all, like Mary Sue or Hipster.

>>32134
>The word you are looking for is influence.
No, i'm not talking about influence.

>films from the past influence later films. This does not make the later films remakes of the previous ones.
Agreed. Fritz Lang's Metropolis, for example was an influence on Blade Runner. Stagecoach was an influence on The Seven Samurai. The Searchers was an influence on Saving Private Ryan. The Godfather was an influence on Goodfellas. The adventure serials of the 1930s and 40s were influences on Raiders Of The Lost Ark...The list can go on and on. However, these are not remakes of the inherent stories and their structures presented in the respective films.

>Ocean's Eleven is a remake. The Amityville Horror is a remake. My Bloody Valentine is a remake. These are retellings of the same story. When you start to include movies that have "similar" broad elements, you stretch the meaning of the word "remake" to the point where it no longer has any meaning at all, like Mary Sue or Hipster.
This is not completely true. Yes, a remake can consist of a re-telling of the exact same story with relatively minor deviations or differences, but this is not the sole defining attribute of a remake. A remake is still considered such if it still tells the same inherent story with the same characteristic structure as the preceding story (or film, in these cases) that preceded it. The Magnificent Seven and A Fistful Of Dollars change the feudal Japan settings and Japanese warriors of the original films to Western backgrounds with gunslinger protagonists, not to mention displaying obviously different developments, whilst still maintaining, as i've said, the same inherent story and structural characteristics.
Furthermore, the remakes I noted, including Star Wars, don't exactly share 'broad elements'. They bear definite, attributes with the films they spawned from. The use of mobsters between two movies is a 'broad element'. The narrative perspective of two lowly, weary companions as they travel with a runaway princess, who herself has ties to an important military commander clad in black, on their way to a hidden fortress containing within it substantial destructive power are all specific elements.

http://www.avclub.com/articles/topher-grace-edited-all-the-star-wars-prequels-int,70527/
Color me intrigued.

>>32140
I know a lot of shit isn't needed in those movies, but I need to see it actually be edited into an enjoyable experience before I believe the prequels can truly be fixed.

>>32140
I saw The Phantom Edit and even in that one too much stuff was cut out.

No, compressing three films into 85 minutes is just... that just doesn't work.

>>32139

Under that definition, Superman is a remake of John Carter.

The word remake doesn't mean that. That's not the dictionary definition, that's not the commonly accepted popular definition. The word was never intended to mean that. It has a narrowly-defined definition. You are misusing it. If you insist on calling it a remake, you're using a definition that only you use.

>>32175
>Under that definition, Superman is a remake of John Carter.
How exactly, under that definition, can you call Superman a remake of John Carter (I'm assuming you're referring to the films, as that is what we're talking about here in terms of remakes. After all, literary 'remakes' are a whole different bag)? I just don't see it, man.

>That's not the dictionary definition
2re·make
noun \ˈrē-ˌmāk\
Definition: one that is remade; especially : a new version of a motion picture
The dictionary definition, at least this one taken from Mirriam-Webster, does not discount what i've said. If anything, it's very vague.

>that's not the commonly accepted popular definition.
No, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong, either.

>The word was never intended to mean that.
The directors of A Fistful Of Dollars and The Magnificent Seven, amongst directors of other such films i've listed, have specifically stated their versions are remakes. This is a known, documented fact. Thus, it very much has been intended to mean that.

>It has a narrowly-defined definition. You are misusing it.
I don't see how.

>If you insist on calling it a remake, you're using a definition that only you use.
Again, film directors and critics have used the term in the same way i've been using it to refer to certain films alongside their predecessors.

My personal opinion: FUCK JOHN CARTER. Ever read the books? Both John and Dejah are fully nude at all times. I've said it again and again, get Frank Cho to do a uncensored graphic novel of the Barsoom series. He did a great job on Shanna.

>>32215

Actually, there is nothing that says films have a special definition of "remake." Remake has the same meaning if referred to a book, a song, a film, a play, or any other artistic expression. I was actually referring to the original Superman and John Carter writings, which would be a man comes from another world to find that its properties grants him incredible powers etc., etc., etc. And while those are similar themes that the two works have, much in the same way A New Hope and Hidden Fortress have similar themes, the execution of these themes is substantially different in such a way that they cannot be considered to be the same work "remade"

To remake something, you need to "make it again or differently." I'll agree that is pretty broad terminology. That is why you have to look at the context of how it is used, which is why we use fucking Encyclopedias. Even law statutes can be construed broadly, that's why we have cases and judgments to let us know the boundaries and scope of the definitions. At any rate, according to wikipedia (which, despite its reputation, is the most broadly used encyclopedia): The term "remake" is generally used in reference to a movie which uses an earlier movie as the main source material, rather than in reference to a second, later movie based on the same source.

A remake doesn’t need to have the same title. It doesn’t need to have the characters have the same name. It doesn’t need to have the same setting. However, the further you get away from the original, the less it is a remake. While it doesn’t have to borrow EVERYTHING from a previous work, a remake has to borrow a LOT from the original source material. Just because “The Cohen’s and the Kellys” was a play about two kids who fall in love despite the fighting between two families, one Irish and one Jewish, doesn’t mean it was a remake of “Abie’s Irish Rose.” (Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp.). It is important to realize that ALL creative works are built by accretion, building on what comes before them, and if you deem anything that shares a similarity to a previous work a “remake” then the term loses all useful meaning.

>>32220

>Ever read the books? Both John and Dejah are fully nude at all times.

That... is honestly something I don't think needs to be defended or enforced all that much.

>>32220
"Nude" according to the social norms of 1900.

The Martian harnesses of the books are easily adapted into something that say, allows the series to be classified as something besides a porno. They've got fucking POCKETS, large enough to carry all sorts of shit.

>>32228
>"Nude" according to the social norms of 1900.
Sorta like how Rose Tyler was, according to Queen Victoria, "Running around naked" in that werewolf episode?

>>32232
Is T&A in an adult graphic novel so evil?

>>32233
no but it's not NECESSARY

jeez man take a cold shower or something

>>32235
This. Is there a vital plot point where nudity is a must? No? Then whatever.
>>32215
You are getting so many things wrong and mixed up it's not even funny.

>>32221
>Actually, there is nothing that says films have a special definition of "remake." Remake has the same meaning if referred to a book, a song, a film, a play, or any other artistic expression.
The same inherent meaning, yes, but literature and film are two different mediums with two different methods of production and storytelling and two different forms of context. What stands true for literature does not necessarily stand true for film with their practices or end results. Naturally, this renders the manner of their characteristics within particular, individual contexts - a remake of a work of literature does not necessarily follow the same form or guidelines as a remake of a work of film.

>And while those are similar themes that the two works have, much in the same way A New Hope and Hidden Fortress have similar themes, the execution of these themes is substantially different in such a way that they cannot be considered to be the same work "remade"
I once again point you to A Fistful Of Dollars and The Magnificent Seven, hell even A Bug's Life, all executed substantially different in the presentation of their thematic elements, and yet still easily distinguishable as remakes of Kurosawa's films. Just because Star Wars and The Hidden Fortress are executed differently does not discount that one is not a remake of the other. What classifies them as remakes is the point that the inherent stories and characteristics of said stories are borrowed/lifted/redone/whatever terminology one wishes to use to retell the story once again, either through the same view or through a different perspective.

>The term "remake" is generally used in reference to a movie which uses an earlier movie as the main source material, rather than in reference to a second, later movie based on the same source.
Forgive me for sounding repetitive, but this definition still does not discount my point of Star Wars being a remake of The Hidden Fortress. Lucas has gone on record before as saying Kurosawa's film was, along with Flash Gordon Conquers The Universe, the main source material from which he drew the elements that would cause him to write Star Wars.

>A remake doesn’t need to have the same title. It doesn’t need to have the characters have the same name. It doesn’t need to have the same setting. However, the further you get away from the original, the less it is a remake. While it doesn’t have to borrow EVERYTHING from a previous work, a remake has to borrow a LOT from the original source material.
Agreed on all points. I simply contest that Star Wars (while indeed unique in man ways compared to The Hidden Fortress) stills bears the same story at its core, and does borrow a significant amount from the two previously mentioned films.

>It is important to realize that ALL creative works are built by accretion, building on what comes before them, and if you deem anything that shares a similarity to a previous work a “remake” then the term loses all useful meaning.
Agreed. The very heart of storytelling lies in building upon the stories we've come to know throughout life. However, I'm not suggesting that 'anything that shares a similarity to a previous work' is definitely a remake. I'm simply saying that context and definitive thematic elements is the key factor in acknowledging such a thing, and that those of Star Wars are directly remade from those of The Hidden Fortress and Flash Gordon Conquers The Universe.

>>32238
I disagree, I don't think I'm mixed up at all. Somewhat accusatory of Lucas and drained of illusions to his 'originality', perhaps, but not mixed up.

>>32260
>Forgive me for sounding repetitive, but this definition still does not discount my point of Star Wars being a remake of The Hidden Fortress. Lucas has gone on record before as saying Kurosawa's film was, along with Flash Gordon Conquers The Universe, the main source material from which he drew the elements that would cause him to write Star Wars.
>the main source material from which he drew the elements that would cause him to write Star Wars.

Main source material from which HE DREW ELEMENTS that would cause him to write Star Wars. That is a textbook example of inspiration/using reference, NOT remaking. You are the only person here against 3 or 4 people who insists on your view of what the term "remake" is.

>>32266
Good lord, fine. I'm completely wrong. Does that make all of you happy now?

>>32278
Yes actually, in this instance it does.