Topher Grace Screens Star Wars Prequel Re-edit 192
silentbrad writes "/Film (as well as IGN and A.V. Club) reports about Topher Grace's fan re-edit of the Star Wars prequel trilogy into a single, 85-minute film titled Star Wars: Episode III.5: The Editor Strikes Back.' Quoting /Film: 'His idea was to edit the Star Wars prequels into one movie, as they would provide him a lot of footage to work with. He used footage from all three prequels, a couple cuts from the original trilogy, some music from The Clone Wars television series, and even a dialogue bit from Anthony Daniels' (C-3PO) audio book recordings. He even created a new opening text crawl to set up his version of the story.' It continues with what stayed and what was cut. It's just too bad it was a one-time-only screening."
Should do that with Matrix 2 and 3 (Score:5, Interesting)
Separate, boring they are.
Together, one good movie it would be.
Re:Make something new (Score:5, Interesting)
The goal wasn't to make the prequels not suck. He's learning about editing film, and used the prequels as a medium to do so (and probably make a great test case to show both the potential and limitations of post-production editing).
Calculus and science are great, but I don't think everyone should do that and nobody should do art. Once you accept that the entire concept of movies aren't pointless, then learning about editing is a useful skill.
ow To Fix The Phantom Menace In 12 Minutes (Score:4, Interesting)
Listening to this guy describe how he would change the first prequel is really interesting... it would actually make for a pretty decent movie.
I'd love see his take on the subsequent two movies.
This 12 minute video is totally worth your time:
http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2012/02/how-to-fix-the-phantom-menace-in-12-minutes/ [gizmodo.com.au]
Description Not Copywritable (Score:4, Interesting)
Should stop putting first sentence in subject line (Score:4, Interesting)
Should do that with Matrix 2 and 3. Separate, boring they are. Together, one good movie it would be.
That's because they *are* a single overlong movie split into two parts in all but name. Even moreso than the explicitly split "Kill Bill" (where you could enjoy each of the parts in its own right due to its more scene-based nature).
More's the pity because, although it clearly wasn't as good as the original, The Matrix Reloaded was still quite good in its own way (if a bit too long)... but clearly a "part 1" that requires you to watch "part 2" to be complete.... except that "part 2" (i.e. Revolutions) was just lousy, and would have been too long at anything over an hour. I'd personally trim Reloaded and hack all but the essentials from Revolutions.
Even then it wouldn't solve the "resolution" of Revolutions which felt less like a satisfying "tying things up" ending and more like an intentionally incomplete and half-baked non-resolution designed to provide a point to expand the franchise (*) from. Ironically, we *haven't* really seen much Matrix-related stuff in the 8+ years since then (I'm sure they've done backstory comics and such guff for the fanboys, but I'm talking about mass market on the same scale as the movies themselves). Is this because it really was intended as the final movie, or because Revolutions' reception was so poor that it seriously damaged the prospects of more Matrix material?
To be honest, part of the problem may always have been that- although "The Matrix" looks on the surface like it should be one of those films that would work well as a franchise (due to the questions and possibilities it throws up and the expanded world it suggests)... it isn't. What worked about the first movie was wrapped up by the end. You can't redo the sense of wonder and discovery that drove the first movie, and once Neo has made that journey he's no longer really the confused and bemused everyman cipher (that Reeves' criticised acting style actually worked really well for), but a knowledgeable Superman in a much larger world (Zion) of characters with bad dialogue we really don't care about.
(*) Ugh, anyone notice how common that word has become in the past decade? We're all using terminology that makes us sound like a mixture of fanboy and corporate studio types. Though of course it's true- such things *are* moneymaking franchises, but it doesn't say much for artistic integrity, nor for us in that we accept and use the term.
Re:So what's the point of telling us? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why can't he release a detailed list of every edit he made (allowing someone else with a nonlinear editing suite, lots of time on his hands, and fewer qualms about BitTorrent to piece it together)? Surely he kept records, if he's studying to be an editor?
Re:Should do that with Matrix 2 and 3 (Score:3, Interesting)
based on THAT theory, a re-edit of part 2 and 3 into 1 film might actually work.
Re:Hayden's best parts (Score:4, Interesting)
Not a single damn actor in that movie did well. After watching the prequels I had to go peruse some of Natalie Portman's other films. Because I had thought she was a good actor, but was starting to doubt it. Turns out that yes, indeed, she has acting chops. But there's only so much an actor can do with a terrible script, nothing but a green screen to act against, and a director who isn't happy until the actor does exactly what he wants and what he wants is retarded.
Same with Ewan McGregor. To a lesser extent Liam Neeson, Samuel Jackson, and Christopher Lee, but that's because they had less screentime to erase memories of other things they've done.
So, I don't recall seeing Hayden Christiansen in anything else, but my default assumption is that he can probably act but looked horrible in those movies just like everyone else did.
Re:Should do that with Matrix 2 and 3 (Score:5, Interesting)
I just mentally change everything as if the script had stuck with humans as CPUs. Picture Morpheus holding an Intel chip instad of a Duracel, and it all works out and makes so much more sense.
Not all the plot holes go away, but a lot of them do. (For example, why the Agents can't just break rules in the Matrix willy-nilly however they please, but rather must stick to bending them.)
Re:Should do that with Matrix 2 and 3 (Score:5, Interesting)
Or you can just imagine that the script stuck with humans as CPUs but still has Morpheus holding a battery and saying exactly what he said about the machines using humans for energy, but that Morpheus is a religious fanatic successfully deceived by misleading propaganda spread by the machines as part of a system of control...
Which, even though it may not ever be stated on screen to be the explanation for that particular statement by Morpheus, is actually entirely consistent with the rest of the series.
You just have to drop the idea of Morpheus as a completely reliable narrator, which, is a pretty unjustified idea to start with.