XPost: rec.arts.tv, rec.arts.sf.tv, rec.arts.movies.past-films
From: anybody@anywhere-anytime.com

In article , Merrick
Baldelli  wrote:

> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 16:06:52 +1200, Anybody
>  wrote:
>
> >In article , Merrick
> >Baldelli  wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 16:40:51 +1200, Anybody
> >>  wrote:
> >>

> However, personal taste aside -- what the character's thinking
> is based not usually on the scriptwriter's interpretations, but in
> fact the novelization writer's...  Do you know for certain how much of
> it is creative interpretation vs. what the scriptwriter had in mind
> when the character did what he did based on what he was thinking?  I'm
> wagering you won't.  Personal experience in this realm has been
> usually as long as one doesn't change the actions of the story -- the
> scriptwriter usually okays a lot more of the interpretation of what's
> going on inside the character's head than I feel comfortable with.

The scriptwriter in this case is George Lucas who has VERY defined
ideas about HIS story. The writer of the movie novelisation has access
to George Lucas and his notes, as well as the set and script. George
Lucas also has the final say on the novelisation.

Yes, ther no doubt are some bits added by the wroter to flesh out the
movie story into a readable book, but MUCH less so than with other
movie-based novelisations.



> >If you want to be one of those "movie only" twits, then there's little
> >point in wasting time trying to answer what can't be answered by just
> >the film.
>
>         Are you sure?  Where did you get a degree in psychology from?

Not everything is in the film. If someone asks a questions and then
simply dismisses the answer JUST because it wasn't on-screen, then they
are morons who shouldn't have wasted time asking the question they knew
didn't have an answer they'd be happy with.



> >From my quick flick through the novel, the doctored security video
> >shows an angry Jedi, a poilte Palpatine and then Palpatine running
> >around shouting "Help! They're trying to kill me!".
>
>         Hence, see.  That wouldn't be doctored; that would be utterly
> fabricated, and thus provides more than adequate proof that
> interpretation was left to the writer with a marginal blessing from
> Lucas.  Between you and me I would strongly wager that Lucas didn't
> think that through, read it and said, "okay that seems fair..."  So
> who's actually writing it -- Lucas?  Or Stover?  I'm going to wager it
> was Stover's idea, which in fact taints the story being told.

It was doctored from the video taken during the battle. Basically
Palpatine would have taken that video, "cut / pasted" it into how he
wanted it to play. Anyone who has used something like Photoshop can
tell you how easy it is to doctor an image.



> >Yes, the new "Battlestar Galactica" is more realistic, but then few
> >people want to watch realism, especially real wars ... there's enough
> >of that on the daily news, if not outside your own front door. Voyager
> >is a better piece of entertainment with a wider appeal. It's escapism.
>
>         Right! *sarcastically said*  Explain the ire in the groups of
> alt.tv.star.trek.voyager and the drastically reducing lackluster
> interest in Star Trek since.

I never said Voyager was the best of the Trek franchise. I said Voyager
has a wider audience appeal than the new Battlestar Galactica, which is
true - my mother would watch Voyager, but she wouldn't bother with the
new Galactica.

As for the "lackluster interest in Star Trek", that's caused by the
movies and TV shows getting worse and worse as the evil twins Beavis &
Butthead tried to add their own idiotic ideas into the franchise,
culminating in the awful Enterprise - a "non-Trek Star Trek.   :-\



>         I also think you're retconning.  Would you like to try again?

George Lucas said himself that the movies are for kids ... if you don't
want to believe hime then why should I waste any more time.



> >If they wanted to make a realistic space show, then why bother re-using
> >the name of the original show. Just make a brand new show with a brand
> >new name. The only real reason behind using the original's name was to
> >bandwagon jump onto the latest fad of "remakes" (99% of which have
> >little resemblance to the original).
>
>         Yeah...  Right..  Renegade robots out to destroy humanity.
> Humans flee through space for some place to regroup.

The entire style of the show is different. The original was a
family-watchable show aimed at kids (yes you sid it wasn't, whihc is
wrong). The new version is "realistic" rubbish aimed at so-called
"adults", which is why they've added an eyecandy bimbo.



> Want to wager
> there would have been litigation from Glen A Larson's lawyers had it
> not asked for permission first?

Glen Larson doesn't own the rights to the TV series, the network does
which is why they were able to create a new version without asking him.



> >As before, Splinter *WAS* the original idea from George Lucas for the
> >sequel.
>
>         Funny...  ADF doesn't say it was Lucas' idea at all.  He
> claims he "wrote" it.  All ADF claims is that he used the characters
> and the universe to create the story.  Of course, ADF is also accused
> of being a hack and a ghost writer, but I seriously doubt that Lucas
> did any penning when it came to Splinter...

The IDEAS were George Lucas'. George Lucas didn't actually have a fully
complete story - he wrote each episode as it become needed, which is
why the original ideas have been changed over time.



> >It was going to be released as a novel even if the movie wasn't
> >successful. The movie obviously was successful, so George Lucas went on
> >to make more movies, and in doing so he altered his original storyline.
>
>         Are you high?
>
>         Star Wars by George Lucas was published 1976.  Movie, out in
> 1977.  SotME was published Summer 1978.  Do you have any idea of
> timelines ...

Do you relaise how long it takes to write, print and distribute a
book?? Nope, didn't thinks so - I do since I know people who work in
that industry.





> >>         Indeed..  Still the message was pretty clear, and had to be
> >> retconed afterwards.
> >
> >You've just proven what I said anyway - it's only hindsight by the
> >audience, and has no real impact on the characters or the story at all.
> >It's simply gutter-minded people getting themselves over-excited.
>
>         REALLY NOW?  Explain to me again the scene involving Luke,
> Leia, Chewbacca and Solo in the medical area on Hoth, and the reaction

[continued in next message]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
 * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)