Sign In
Register
Help
Add Reply
QUOTE
The fact that he isn't in the film, and so cant be considered part of the film?
I don't see how we can even argue about that, its just a fact.
I don't see how we can even argue about that, its just a fact.
As I mentioned before, I'd have to disagree with you there, particularly as your use of the word "fact" to describe your opinion. Yes, it's a fact that the scene was deleted. We all know and acknowledge that. There's no need for redundancy. However, you've yet to provide one reason why it's an established fact that deleted scenes suddenly don't count as a part of the actual movie. Sure, it wasn't in the current theatrical cut that we saw, but movie directors are notorious for claiming that the cut that people have seen in the theaters differs greatly from their actual vision. This is because, typically, the directors already have the completed movie beforehand.
However, directors still have a responsibility to their distributors. This process more or less consists of a representative of the film saying "Well, we've finished the movie. Are you ready to receive it?" Since the average consumer is more likely to see a shorter movie, in addition to the fact that a theater can have more showings of a shorter movie, the distributors are predisposed toward cutting movies. That's how you run businesses. "They want to see the complete movie? Let 'em buy it when it's released on DVD/VHS." In my own personal experience, I've yet to see a single movie where the Distributors were happy with the original length. Directors are in essence subservient in this situation, and time cuts generally account for most deleted scenes. A rather infamous example that illustrates this is the movie Greed, which originally clocked in at a whopping nine hours, twenty minutes. They actually had to go through multiple directors and editors (if memory serves, the first got it to seven hours, the second to five, the third to four hours, and then one more) before they finally got the movie down to a presentable, yet not even vaguely coherent two hours.
The only other instances of deleted scenes that occur are usually "alternate scenes" that are either met by harsh test audience critique, or are improvised (as in not in the script or the screenplay) and serve as little more than slightly serious outtakes. Neither of which applies to Star Wars: Episode I: The Phantom Menace.
Doesn't it seem to be logical that if a director doesn't want a scene to be in a movie, he or she will not go through the trouble of filming it? We've got to remember, it's not like they just set things up, shoot one take, and put it in. Even simple scenes can take hours of work (particularly if you're working with child actors) to get one usable take. Unless the director finds some form of twisted gratification in wasting time, they simply avoid filming it. I'd also just like to mention that the directors usually have not written the script either. If a scene comes off as clunky or misplaced, it is usually the writer's responsibility to remove it. Of course, the director sometimes conflicts with the view and the scene is cut. By all means, this should not apply if the director and the script-writer are the same person. Besides, is it particularly fair to take the time and effort of the collective actors and crew who worked to make a scene that doesn't even make it into the movie?
At this point, I'd just like to point out that they used to solve the problem of the removed scenes via Director's cuts (which, contrary to Basher revisionist History, George Lucas was neither the first, nor the last to do so and irritate fans of the original cuts), wherein all such scenes were tracked down and inserted into the movie by way of re-editting. Now, with the advent of DVDs, it's possible to include the scenes without going to the trouble of extensive re-editting. It's just a simple clip, bam, she's in there, it's done. DVDs are basically their own directors cut. Scenes the director really doesn't fancy or can't locate (i.e., the scene where Wald wished Anakin luck before the race) simply don't make it in.
Now, they still do make Directors Cut DVDs, but of course, as I mentioned before, these accompany extensive re-editting, usually for the purpose of cleaning up the visuals or the sound et cetera (See Star Wars Special Edition DVDs). Funny thing about these DVDs: They don't have deleted scenes. Every scene that would have been featured on the former DVD's library? In the movie. Lucas is no exception to this vain of thought. That's why we have such scenes as Han walking all over Jabba the Hutt, or those few shots of Darth Vader heading for his ship (See Chefelf's Reasons to Hate Star Wars Special Edition DVDs). It's not only possible, but it seems to me highly likely that we'll see the scene on a future Edition. Lucas probably would have done so sooner, but, well, it just makes sense to release multiple versions of the movie at different times.
Another factor that you seem to be ignoring is, unlike nearly any other movie out there, Star Wars has its own set of approved, external canon, used to both fill in the blanks and give extra insights. Time and again, Lucas has acknowledged that this canon exists, so I don't think you can simply discount the canon just like that. For instance, look at the Star Wars: Episode III: Revenge of the Sith deleted scenes. There's a scene where General Grievous kills Shaak Ti via a lightsaber through the spine, which was removed because it violated the canon! In the novelization, Shaak Ti got wasted by Anakin, so Grievous's murder was a contradiction to that. Whether or not any of us has reverence or respect for the canon is irrelevant. It's there. It's considered official by the most official sources (the creators of the movie). Anakin's Scuffle with Greedo is a stark contrast to this; it fits the canon, it's in the Lucas-approved novelization. And, (I can provide as many websites as you want to conclusively prove) it is on the DVD.
Of course, even if you still disagree with me on my classification of deleted scenes, none of this changes the fact that George Lucas still conceived, wrote, and filmed the scene. He said to himself "I think I'll have Anakin know Greedo. This is surely a good idea." I mean no offense by this remark, but I'm curious as to whether it's just the usual Lucas Apologism dictating that a battle must be fought to somehow discount the scene and remove all accountability from the Flanneled One about his mistakes?
I, personally, am only mildly irritated by the scene. (I thought that Yoda being good friends with Chewie was where the line of random characters knowing each other was crossed, whereas Anakin and Greedo, at least born on the same planet, would be a bit more likely, but that's just me). Hell, a couple months back on another site, I actually saw some pretty fair and convincing arguments as to why the scene should have been included (some will find it interesting to note that one of the higher priority reasons was so that people stopped confusing Wald with Greedo
). But I accept it, as I do all deleted scenes, good and bad, of all movies, for the reasons that I have provided. Now, the DVD deleted Scene library ostensibly provides a commentary outlining why the scenes didn't make it to the final cut. Theoretically, there are answers there, which if they exist, overrule my assessment of directors and the Flanneled Fatass in general. Again, I neither possess the item nor any desire to buy said item, but others have. If Lucas or McCallum explicitly states (and I would like a verbatim response) anything along the lines of "Well, we all thought that Anakin knowing Greedo was a silly idea. I/George must have been sniffing glue, drunk, and simultaneously doing Scarface-esque levels of drugs the day that I/he came up with that concept. Please, do not count it as part of the movie", I will recant what I have said and accept that that particular scene cannot be considered as part of the movie and that it is an invalid criticism.
MultiQuote
The more I think about it, the more fitting I find using this analogy in regard to the Prequels... ) Go back again and look at it. Doesn't quite seem the same now that that brilliant gold shimmer turned out to be Number One, does it? 
) but also the fact that Lucas, long touted by fans as the be-all to end-all absolute authority on Star Wars, who acknowledges and praises the canon and uses chunks of it in his movies, doesn't even know his own creation? 
