[Harmonica]

Harmonica, you’ve descended into the realms of madness

....

What? That's it?

An ad hominem?

That's almost all you have in response?



Well, if that's a strong argument, then I have this wonderful point that hereby discredits every post you've made and ever will make. And that is:

Jariten, you are a doofus.

There, it's been said. You are now to commit Seppuku to regain your honor or leave forever in heinous shame!

Or uh, something like that.



But really, all kidding aside, name calling doesn't get anyone anywhere.

You are basically trying to tell me that something exists in a film even if it is not present IN ANY SCENE OF THE FILM from the second it starts until it finishes.

I haven't said that and I am not saying that. I am saying that it is my opinion that a scene originally intended to be in the film and considered by the film's creator as part of the film should be regarded part of the film. Since you don't seem to realize that, and you seem to ignore 98% of what I write, I now have to wonder if you are actually reading any of my posts beyond a mere skim.

You are either doing this intentionally to annoy me for some reason (I’m more bewildered btw, I’ve never heard a continuous argument more irrational than this for a long time).

Aside from the fact that that's another ad hominem, I am not intentionally trying to annoy you. I am explaining why I believe what I believe. Given that I've provided, y'know, actual examples, reasons, and evidence to back what I believe up, I'd hardly call it irrational. Irrational is a label I apply to posts that provide no form of back-up whatsoever.

I use capitals because I’m typing this at work on Word, so I cut and paste and post before someone catches me at it (it does the same job as italics, more or less).

My mistake, then.

Again, before the stars clear from my spinning eyes completely, let me just try to clarify what you’re saying (because I still don’t believe it)

Even if a scene does not exist in the film (and I’ve explained what this means quite enough), then it still exists in the film?

...Ignoring the part that scenes really don't exist anyway since we're talking about fiction, you have yet to actually explain what you mean. I've double-checked, and all the posts have is "Greedo does not exist in the film" because "Greedo does not exist in the film." That logic's a bit too circular for me to accept.

Nobody can deny that it is a fact that Greedo does not appear in either the DVD or theatrical release of TPM.

Um. No. It's already been fairly established that it's on the DVD release of Star Wars: Episode I: The Phantom Menace. Unless the four websites I checked, including Amazon.com, and diligent_d are all wrong, the statement "its not even included on the DVD deleted scenes" is a lie. Greedo does in fact appear in the deleted scenes in the DVD release.

I state that the scene, since it doesn't exist in the film, cannot be considered part of the film.

I say "state", not "argue", because to me personally it seems like a no-brainer.

You can call it a fact as many times as you want. It's still an opinion, which has yet to be justified or backed up in any way, shape, or form beyond an insignificant technicality. If it is a fact, you would be able to tell me why it was a fact. You have yet to do so.

Besides, parts are not inherently fixed. Plenty of detachable parts exist in the world, but are still considered to be included with the whole. For instance, let's imagine a man in the Military. They do drills a lot. If the man steps out of formation and walks fifty feet away, is he no longer considered by the world to be part of the company? Does he believe that he is no longer obligated to follow the orders of his C.O.? And if they are in a battle and split up, is he no longer considered part of the Army because he's no longer right there with everyone else? I say that the answer to all of the above is "No." He's not in the formation of men and he's not with his company, but I (and probably most military officials) would still consider him enlisted.

de·lete
To remove by striking out or canceling: deleted some unnecessary words in the first draft

I hadn't wished or expected to have to resort to Dictionary.com for this, (it is, after all, the last refuge of those who feel the need to rely on technicalities like a crutch) but since you brought it up, it's fine with me.

You rather conveniently ignored the part where the site said "To delete is to remove matter from a manuscript or data from a computer application."

You may or may not realize, but the scene is still very much included in the manuscript. Again, because scene removal comes after the completion of the movie, such changes are not reflected on the script. Not to mention the fact that its data has found its way to the DVD, unlike the contents of several other deleted scenes.

Yet you still insist on considering something that has been removed from the film, i.e something that no longer exists in the film, part of the film.

Look up the word "consider" or "regard" or "deem". I'm fairly certain that they involve the word "Opinion" or "Subjective". In saying that I cannot regard something in someway, you are stating that I am not entitled to my opinion. You are stating that your opinion, and no one else's, is a fact? So, you're like, omniscient and know everything? Bitchin', man.

Well, in that case, as I am but a lowly mortal, surely I cannot compete with the reasoning of God incarnate.

As for why I still insist on maintaining my point of view, you've yet to introduce a single new piece of information or reason at all to me. As such, there is absolutely zero impetus for me to change my stance.

I don't see how a million essay long posts you could make (and i'm sure you could make them. I've made more than a few too) could remove the non-sensical core of that argument.

I hate to break it to you, but the core of my argument is evidence gathered from George Lucas himself.

Yes or no, George Lucas knows his own creation better than you do?

[jariten]

...Ignoring the part that scenes really don't exist anyway since we're talking about fiction, you have yet to actually explain what you mean. I've double-checked, and all the posts have is "Greedo does not exist in the film" because "Greedo does not exist in the film." That logic's a bit too circular for me to accept.

Fair enough.

What I mean by "Greedo does not exist in the film" is that Greedo does not appear in a single frame of the film from the first to the last.

Yes, he does appear in the deleted scenes (by DVD release I meant the film, not the package as a whole)

Deleted meaning taken out.

Meaning not a part of the film.

If you want to choose to include something that is no longer part of the film (something by the way that was intended by the director, for whatever reason) as still being part of the film, you go right ahead.

You talk about the directors intention being originally to include the scene, which is why he shot it, and its this display of intention that now makes it part of TPM (thats your argument right?)

Ironically though, you seem to be ignoring that final wave of the wand that Lucas made over that scene- WHICH WAS TO CUT IT FROM THE FILM ENTIRELY. Why take all of Lucas' other intentions and set them in stone, but then disregard this one?

Hypocricy, wouldn't you say?

[Despondent]

I'm glad GL's "wave of the hand" powers don't exist on this forum.

[Jejef Thgaron]

Fair enough.

What I mean by "Greedo does not exist in the film" is that Greedo does not appear in a single frame of the film from the first to the last.

Yes, he does appear in the deleted scenes (by DVD release I meant the film, not the package as a whole)

Deleted meaning taken out.

Meaning not a part of the film.

If you want to choose to include something that is no longer part of the film (something by the way that was intended by the director, for whatever reason) as still being part of the film, you go right ahead.

You talk about the directors intention being originally to include the scene, which is why he shot it, and its this display of intention that now makes it part of TPM (thats your argument right?)

Ironically though, you seem to be ignoring that final wave of the wand that Lucas made over that scene- WHICH WAS TO CUT IT FROM THE FILM ENTIRELY. Why take all of Lucas' other intentions and set them in stone, but then disregard this one?

Hypocricy, wouldn't you say?

I wouldn't say hypocrisy... more like stupidity. If it's deleted, it means it's not part of the film. If I have to press "ok" on the DVD menu somewhere other than "PLAY MOVIE", it is a sub-menu, which is not part of the actual movie. This is not a 'technicality', Harmonica. It is how the majority of DVD's are made. A DVD menu, often times, has sub-menus, which take you to other un-related sections of the DVD: Deleted scenes, Gag reels, Concept art, Music videos, etc. Then there is the almighty "PLAY MOVIE" selection. You know what it does? It plays the f***ing movie. If you don't see a deleted scene anywhere between the 'Title' screen, and the very end of the 'Credits', it isn't in the movie. This means it's not part of the movie, but rather tossed aside, so the producer of the movie determines whether it goes in the 'Deleted Scenes' menu, or in the trash. It doesn't mean it's not trash, however. It was deleted for a reason... maybe 'divine intervention'... who knows?!? The fact remains... it was D-E-L-E-T-E-D. With liberty and justice for all. Amen.

[Larry Bernard]

I must paraphrase from Calculon

"This thread is so stupid it's given me cancer"

Hi I am a newb here so don't mind me for a moment while i step in here at this thread which makes me believe their is no merciful god

"Greedo is not in the film"

Ok we're in a film where we see Hey R2 and 3p0 are togther when Darth Vader is a little sprat

furst of all the "Wald" being confused for Greedo is going to happen. The fact his name is included wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwaaaaaay in the credits which only ubernerds (no offense) would see proves that it was something left to the minds of you the viewer

yep it was a confusion that would have happened easily but their is a much more important point

that entire scene was utterly useless. I could remove that whole seen and not improve or harm the movie in anyway.

His being greedo or not, is irrelivent. What is much more signifigant is that scene should never have existed

Further more your calling a deleted scene not part of the film depends on what kind of deleted scene your talking about

"Just friends" divides them into deleted and "alternate" scenes. If the deleted scene was an alternate scene george lucas said "damn this is really horrible" then you would have a point. But if it is a scene george would have added if he could have squeezed 2 more minutes into the films run time then no you don't

Its clear from the Deleted Scene that if George had his druthers Greedo would have been in TPM

thus making your point jariten rather foolish. Lucas intended to include Greedo which makes the point 17 comment about "Star Wars babies" entirely valid

thus STFU and stop waisting electrons

[Jejef Thgaron]

I must paraphrase from Calculon

"This thread is so stupid it's given me cancer"

Hi I am a newb here so don't mind me for a moment while i step in here at this thread which makes me believe their is no merciful god

"Greedo is not in the film"

Ok we're in a film where we see Hey R2 and 3p0 are togther when Darth Vader is a little sprat

furst of all the "Wald" being confused for Greedo is going to happen. The fact his name is included wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwaaaaaay in the credits which only ubernerds (no offense) would see proves that it was something left to the minds of you the viewer

yep it was a confusion that would have happened easily but their is a much more important point

that entire scene was utterly useless. I could remove that whole seen and not improve or harm the movie in anyway.

His being greedo or not, is irrelivent. What is much more signifigant is that scene should never have existed

Further more your calling a deleted scene not part of the film depends on what kind of deleted scene your talking about

"Just friends" divides them into deleted and "alternate" scenes. If the deleted scene was an alternate scene george lucas said "damn this is really horrible" then you would have a point. But if it is a scene george would have added if he could have squeezed 2 more minutes into the films run time then no you don't

Its clear from the Deleted Scene that if George had his druthers Greedo would have been in TPM

thus making your point jariten rather foolish. Lucas intended to include Greedo which makes the point 17 comment about "Star Wars babies" entirely valid

thus STFU and stop waisting electrons

I'm calling a DELETED scene NOT part of the FILM. It doesn't matter what kind of deleted scene we refer to, it is DELETED. PERIOD. It is not included anywhere in between the TITLE SCREEN, and the END OF THE CREDITS, which means it ISN'T IN THE FILM. We have already established the fact that 'deleted' means 'taken out' six times. The Greedo scene in question is a systemic anomaly inherent to the DVD's programming.

Ergo, vis-a-vis, concordantly, close your legs because your breath stinks.

[Larry Bernard]

I'm calling a DELETED scene NOT part of the FILM. It doesn't matter what kind of deleted scene we refer to, it is DELETED. PERIOD. It is not included anywhere in between the TITLE SCREEN, and the END OF THE CREDITS, which means it ISN'T IN THE FILM. We have already established the fact that 'deleted' means 'taken out' six times. The Greedo scene in question is a systemic anomaly inherent to the DVD's programming.

Ergo, vis-a-vis, concordantly, close your legs because your breath stinks.

Yes it does matter it matters greatly

1) A creative "dead end"

it shows lucas had no intention of putting it in the film

2) "we gotta cut something"

he did and greedo drew the short straw.

If its #1 your point is relevant

if its #2 your point is irrelivent.

if it is #2 the criticism of baby star wars is valid

if its #1 your challenge to the critique has a point

[jariten]

This is the most boring, inane thread in the history of the internet.

Whoever you are, new guy, you've brought nothing except bias and conjecture.

and Harmonica- you say

I am saying that it is my opinion that a scene originally intended to be in the film and considered by the film's creator as part of the film should be regarded part of the film

You acknowledge the intention of the director only as far as it suits you. You acknowledge his intent to put it in and hold that as law but refuse to acknowledge his ultimate intent, which was to take it out.

You can still come back and say "it's only your opinion that Greedo doesn't exist in the final film".
It's my "opinion" in the same way that it is my "opinion" that the moon exists.

There's nothing left to do with this thread except to take it outside and throw it in the river.

[Despondent]

A river of Lava? The river in Theed which bubbles up from the planet core?

--

The dude looked just like greedo, was seen hanging around greedo's old haunts (for the most part) and was kind of a jerk.

The FACT is, as far as I'm concerned- if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and has webbed feet and I've actually only seen one duck in those parts, it's the SAME duck. 'Specially if all the other SW babies have already been presented as same.

Yes, preeks, I realize the Millenium Falcon class ship seen in ROTS wasn't the MF, but only because you tell me so. Thank you for the enlightenment; now go back to pretending you're enjoying these bullshit films as much as the original fans did with ours.

[jariten]

This is the most boring, inane thread in the history of the internet.

Thank you for the enlightenment; now go back to pretending you're enjoying these bullshit films as much as the original fans did with ours.

See what I mean?

[Despondent]

This is the most boring, inane thread in the history of the internet.

There's always a more boring, inane thread.

Here's a FACT I just came up with. GL got the species name "Rodian", from "Greedo-ian."

And Marcia said "fine George, but I'm trying to get some work done here".

[Sailor Abbey]

Well for some reason I ended up reading all 5 pages of this frigging thread, hoping that it would eventually go somewhere… aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand I officially hate you all.

*makes offensive gesture*

[Harmonica]

You talk about the directors intention being originally to include the scene, which is why he shot it, and its this display of intention that now makes it part of TPM (thats your argument right?)

Wrote it, shot it, approved a novelization containing it, included it in deleted scenes, always put deleted scenes back into his movies when re-editting, and refused to release original versions of movies that do not contain deleted scenes. Yes. I would say that this information indicates a desire to include the scene and count it as part of the movie.

Ironically though, you seem to be ignoring that final wave of the wand that Lucas made over that scene- WHICH WAS TO CUT IT FROM THE FILM ENTIRELY. Why take all of Lucas' other intentions and set them in stone, but then disregard this one?

Hypocricy, wouldn't you say?

People do things all the time that they do not have any desire to do. It's called an external force. If you have never in your life done something that you had no wish to, then I would say that you have lived a charmed life and congratulate you.

But really, under the logic that an act is inherently willful, if a woman gets pregnant, then it automatically means that she wanted a child? Case closed?

There's no reason to actually consider any evidence to figure out her intent?

Let's say she and her husband have been trying to have a child for months. They have a crib. They have wallpaper picked out and everything. Okay, she probably wanted the baby.

Let's say that she has expressed before that she wanted no children. Or what if it was an accident or she was raped. Shouldn't any of that be a factor in consideration?

I say that if one is trying to figure out why she's pregnant and if she wanted to have a baby or not, they should look at the factors. Immediately concluding something effectively handicaps any ability to rationally figure out why she had it. Circumstances should be looked at. Questions should be asked. If they're not, then all that leaves is blind bias based on one's opinion of the woman.

"She probably doesn't want to have a baby because of reasons 1, 2, and 3" is a more effective argument than "She obviously wants a baby because she is having a baby", no matter how many times the latter is repeated.

Of course, and I've pointed this out before, all the evidence in the world doesn't add up to asking her yourself.

I've stated three times that history and Amazon.com indicate that Lucas states the specific reasons for each scene being deleted on the DVD commentary. If Lucas directly and non-obliquely declares on this that he deleted the scene because he felt it was a bad scene, then that will override my evidence and effectively disprove me. If he says there that he hates the scene, I will take back everything that I have said, admit that I am wrong, eat crow, eat my words, eat your shorts, and apologize for wasting everyone's time.

You acknowledge the intention of the director only as far as it suits you. You acknowledge his intent to put it in and hold that as law but refuse to acknowledge his ultimate intent, which was to take it out.

I acknowledge his original intention to put it in because there is evidence that supports it. If you have evidence that says that George Lucas was forced to write Greedo into the script or the like, bring it up and I'll re-evaluate my stance.

I do not acknowledge your so-called final intent because I speculate that he was made by others to take it out against his original intent. I have given the reasons that support this speculation. I've yet to see a single piece of information to make me think otherwise.

You can still come back and say "it's only your opinion that Greedo doesn't exist in the final film".
It's my "opinion" in the same way that it is my "opinion" that the moon exists.

It's your opinion that he can't be regarded as part of the movie. It is my opinion that he can be.

Let's say I have a friend named Lil' Annie. Lil Annie, while battling Keanu Reeves atop a speeding subway train, gets his head thwacked off by a sign and his head rolls off into the shadows. He dies. The end.

Now then, when looking for Lil' Annie's remains, does anyone decide "Since it was severed from his torso, the head is no longer relevant. Let's bury this bitch!"?

Of course not. Tons of people, irrationally or not, consider that lifeless skull to be part of the body, despite the fact (which, by the way, no one debates) that it is not attached or even anywhere near the rest anymore (and hence, does not exist as part of the cadaver).

So anyway, someone finds the lifeless chunk of meat that is the head. Then they say "Huh. Lil' Annie's has a pretty gnarly scar (which got in some kinda motorcycle accident at Dead Man's Curve back when he was alive)". Does anyone say "Nope, because since his head is not attached to the body we put in the ground, we can't consider that thing part of the body. Lil' Annie has no scars, since this head is clearly not on him. You cannot talk about Annie as if he has a scar. Let's just feed this meatbag to the dogs over there"?

Even if Lil' Annie's father, George, has indicated time and again that it is his religious belief and custom that bodies should be regarded as and buried with the pieces they were born with (a decade or so after Lil' Annie's three older brothers died, Father George dug their bodies up, slightly moldy and a bit decayed, and then sewed back on various parts that many people said were irrelevant or destroyed their childhood memories)?

If it's a fact that people who think like this are as insane as those who do not believe in the moon, surely there is proof of this. Please provide.

I wouldn't say hypocrisy... more like stupidity.

Seriously, grow up, mate.

[Despondent]

C'mon, Jariten. Tell us what Uncle George has to say about the deleted scene. None of us bashers have the dvd.

Or ignore it, (like so many valid points above,) keep the secret info (which you may not agree with) to yourself, and take proudly take the burden of Annie's flag from naked C3PO.

[jariten]

Wrote it, shot it, approved a novelization containing it, included it in deleted scenes, always put deleted scenes back into his movies when re-editting, and refused to release original versions of movies that do not contain deleted scenes. Yes. I would say that this information indicates a desire to include the scene and count it as part of the movie.

Excuses, excuses, excuses. That’s all you continue to give me. You keep mentioning this desire of the director, but I mentioned it last time and I’ll mention it again- you don’t care about that.

Here's the FACT. Not speculation, FACT.

It was his final desire to take it out of the film (or was he drugged?! See later)

Again, I’ll point out the obvious, glaring contradiction here- you hold Lucas’s desire to (once upon a time) put it in the film but you IGNORE his final desire which was to take it out. List as many things as you like from Lucas’ past.
In fact, that great evidence you posted just helps you to clarify your nonsense argument further- again you acknowledging Lucas’ decisions, his choice to put those scenes back in, whilst blatantly ignoring the fact that IT WAS HIS CHOICE TO TAKE THE GREEDO SCENE OUT.

I've stated three times that history and Amazon.com indicate that Lucas states the specific reasons for each scene being deleted on the DVD commentary. If Lucas directly and non-obliquely declares on this that he deleted the scene because he felt it was a bad scene, then that will override my evidence and effectively disprove me

Actually, your illogical, contradictory argument has pretty much meant that you’ve already disproven yourself.

Again, for the final time, you acknowledge Lucas’ desires only as far as it suits you, then ignore the rest.

Let’s take the Padme family scenes in AotC- Lucas said he cut them for time reasons (he thought the dialogue was better expressed elsewhere) while still maintaining that he loved the scenes and WAS SAD TO SEE THEM GO (paraphrase).

I.e (and I can’t believe I need to point this out) Lucas doesn’t consider them to be part of AotC.

That’s because they aren’t.

Because he cut them.

When it’s his “desire” to reinsert the scenes into AotC and does so, then it can be regarded as part of AotC.
When it’s his “desire” to reinsert the greedo scene back into TPM, then it’s part of TPM.

Listen, you sounded like an intelligent guy before, but your continuation with this bollocks, contradictory line of thinking is baffling.

I like the nice little escape route you crafted for yourself to get out of it though.

I do not acknowledge your so-called final intent because I speculate that he was made by others to take it out against his original intent

.

Wait, wait, wait. So you speculate that it was his intent to put it in, but then you speculate that it wasn’t his intent to take it out? What, held at gunpoint was he?
Drugged perhaps?
Because that’s the only way you’re going to get around the fact that it was the directors DESIRE to take it out.
It’s funny isn’t it, how the scene was first left out of the theatrical release, then left out of the DVD release too?
If he didn’t find it any more than superfluous, why didn’t he put it back in for the DVD (like he did with the podrace scenes for example)?
Why didn't he reinsert the Padme Family scenes?

Because he considered it unneccesary to the film then, and still does now.

Harmonica, this is bollocks and you know it.

But please, another essay if you wish. I’m all ears.