For those of you who need your daily fix of Lucas bashing, I offer this. Funny thing, one of its articles admits Lucas made far more changes to a movie called THX 1138 than he did to Star Wars. It’s a dud released in 1971 and re-released, with 5 minutes added, that had been edited out of the original, after the 1977 success Star Wars. It still was a dud.No cries of outrage over that. I guess it’s OK to alter it, provided it wasn’t a success. Not that there’s any money behind the outrage over Star Wars. Sure there isn’t.
jukeofurl: “MIght be wrong but, methinks Shakepeare wouldn’t be rewriting Hamlet’s famous soliloquy every few years.”
DocNuke: “Actually, Shakespeare added lots to his plays to appeal to audiences – swordfights, bawdry humor and little digs at royalty.”
That’s only the half of it, Doc. There’s evidence to suggest that Shakespeare (in common with most playwrights of the time) constantly updated/revised their works, sometimes from performance to performance. Topical references could be added or subtracted, scenes expanded or deleted. Even when the texts were published as “finished” versions, there’s no indication that such were the “definitive” visions of the author’s intent; they may just have been the LAST. For Hamlet alone we have two official versions, the 2nd Quarto (published during WS’s lifetime) and the 1st Folio (the “Complete Plays,” compiled after his death). It’s not even certain that the published versions are strictly representative of what was performed; the 2nd Quarto was printed in part in response to the 1st (or “Bad”) Quarto, an “unauthorized” printing about which opinion is divided: it might be some actor’s (often faulty) reconstruction from memory about how the text went; it might be a very early version of Shakespeare’s play; or it might be an accurate version of the play as it was actually performed on stage. Any of these is plausible.
The two canonical texts of King Lear are different enough that they’re sometimes treated as separate plays. Some editors have begun printing the three texts of Hamlet as separate works as well, rather than conflating them (mostly Q2 and F1, although Q1 is sometimes useful for choosing between differences between the two “Good” texts). Alas, I prefer a conflated text, but they can have my Arden 2 when they pry my cold, dead fingers from it.
Really, since EACH performance of live theater is unique, there’s no reason why a “definitive” version would need to exist, or would have been expected. Some plays even had comic scenes which which would be improvised on the spot by gifted “clowns” such as Will Kemp (although Shakespeare himself didn’t seem fond of the practice, given his advice to the Players in Hamlet III:ii:And let those that play your clowns speak no more than is set down for them — for there be of them that will themselves laugh, to set on some quantity of barren spectators to laugh too, though in the meantime some necessary question of the play be then to be considered. That’s villainous, and shows a most pitiable ambition in the fool that uses it.(Shakespeare’s sentiments here, assuming Hamlet is voicing them, are almost certainly colored by memories of working with Kemp. He was undoubtedly a funny and very popular performer, but he was summarily dismissed from the Lord Chamberlain’s Men and replaced by Robert Arnim, a more subtle, wry, and disciplined Clown.)
By the way, I read the use of “Methinks the laddie doth protest too much” as further evidence of Tatulli’s distancing himself from the opinions of Dean. He might even be commenting on the irony of (Dean’s) displaying outrage over Lucas’s tweaking of “Star Wars” a week after having run altered versions of the “Heart’s Delium” scenario.
“The lady doth protest too much, methinks” (Q2; both Q1 and F use “protests” rather than “doth protest”, but ALL the canonical texts put “methinks” at the end rather than the beginning) can be read in two ways: Gertrude thinks the Player Queen’s vows of posthumous fidelity are insincere, but it might be harmless (but distasteful) hyperbole or it might suggest that her (the Player Queen’s) overstatement in fact suggests its opposite: that she’s already anticipating remarriage (when the line is quoted nowadays, it’s usually meant to indicate hypocrisy).
There’s no indication that DEAN is anything other than sincere in his outrage; it’s perfectly in character. So any insincerity being pointed out would seem to be Tatulli pointing at himself. One way or another, Tatulli is being deeply (and deliberately) ironic.
Oh… and the whole “last second” magical answer about wiping C-3PO’s memory was just a little too… idiotically simple of an ending that it was a let down. :-s
perceptor3 almost 13 years ago
Methinks you’re smart for a little kid, Heart!
zero almost 13 years ago
MIght be wrong but, methinks Shakepeare wouldn’t be rewriting Hamlet’s famous soliloquy every few years. . ..
docnuke almost 13 years ago
Actually, Shakespeare added lots to his plays to appeal to audiences – swordfights, bawdry humor and little digs at royalty.
docnuke almost 13 years ago
And Dean’s message reached very few – 1 million units sold in its first week of release.
boba44 almost 13 years ago
One good movie and five crappy sequels, now he’s destroyed the integrity of that one.
rhaacke almost 13 years ago
I have them. He screwed up the party scene at Jabba’s and the ending in “Return of the Jedi.” Otherwise, no complaints.
KEA almost 13 years ago
Think I’ll just stick to my LaserDisc Box Set of the originals.
mabrndt Premium Member almost 13 years ago
For those of you who need your daily fix of Lucas bashing, I offer this. Funny thing, one of its articles admits Lucas made far more changes to a movie called THX 1138 than he did to Star Wars. It’s a dud released in 1971 and re-released, with 5 minutes added, that had been edited out of the original, after the 1977 success Star Wars. It still was a dud.No cries of outrage over that. I guess it’s OK to alter it, provided it wasn’t a success. Not that there’s any money behind the outrage over Star Wars. Sure there isn’t.
joylion almost 13 years ago
Awww! thats so sweet!
fritzoid Premium Member almost 13 years ago
jukeofurl: “MIght be wrong but, methinks Shakepeare wouldn’t be rewriting Hamlet’s famous soliloquy every few years.”
DocNuke: “Actually, Shakespeare added lots to his plays to appeal to audiences – swordfights, bawdry humor and little digs at royalty.”
That’s only the half of it, Doc. There’s evidence to suggest that Shakespeare (in common with most playwrights of the time) constantly updated/revised their works, sometimes from performance to performance. Topical references could be added or subtracted, scenes expanded or deleted. Even when the texts were published as “finished” versions, there’s no indication that such were the “definitive” visions of the author’s intent; they may just have been the LAST. For Hamlet alone we have two official versions, the 2nd Quarto (published during WS’s lifetime) and the 1st Folio (the “Complete Plays,” compiled after his death). It’s not even certain that the published versions are strictly representative of what was performed; the 2nd Quarto was printed in part in response to the 1st (or “Bad”) Quarto, an “unauthorized” printing about which opinion is divided: it might be some actor’s (often faulty) reconstruction from memory about how the text went; it might be a very early version of Shakespeare’s play; or it might be an accurate version of the play as it was actually performed on stage. Any of these is plausible.
The two canonical texts of King Lear are different enough that they’re sometimes treated as separate plays. Some editors have begun printing the three texts of Hamlet as separate works as well, rather than conflating them (mostly Q2 and F1, although Q1 is sometimes useful for choosing between differences between the two “Good” texts). Alas, I prefer a conflated text, but they can have my Arden 2 when they pry my cold, dead fingers from it.
Really, since EACH performance of live theater is unique, there’s no reason why a “definitive” version would need to exist, or would have been expected. Some plays even had comic scenes which which would be improvised on the spot by gifted “clowns” such as Will Kemp (although Shakespeare himself didn’t seem fond of the practice, given his advice to the Players in Hamlet III:ii:And let those that play your clowns speak no more than is set down for them — for there be of them that will themselves laugh, to set on some quantity of barren spectators to laugh too, though in the meantime some necessary question of the play be then to be considered. That’s villainous, and shows a most pitiable ambition in the fool that uses it.(Shakespeare’s sentiments here, assuming Hamlet is voicing them, are almost certainly colored by memories of working with Kemp. He was undoubtedly a funny and very popular performer, but he was summarily dismissed from the Lord Chamberlain’s Men and replaced by Robert Arnim, a more subtle, wry, and disciplined Clown.)
fritzoid Premium Member almost 13 years ago
By the way, I read the use of “Methinks the laddie doth protest too much” as further evidence of Tatulli’s distancing himself from the opinions of Dean. He might even be commenting on the irony of (Dean’s) displaying outrage over Lucas’s tweaking of “Star Wars” a week after having run altered versions of the “Heart’s Delium” scenario.
“The lady doth protest too much, methinks” (Q2; both Q1 and F use “protests” rather than “doth protest”, but ALL the canonical texts put “methinks” at the end rather than the beginning) can be read in two ways: Gertrude thinks the Player Queen’s vows of posthumous fidelity are insincere, but it might be harmless (but distasteful) hyperbole or it might suggest that her (the Player Queen’s) overstatement in fact suggests its opposite: that she’s already anticipating remarriage (when the line is quoted nowadays, it’s usually meant to indicate hypocrisy).
There’s no indication that DEAN is anything other than sincere in his outrage; it’s perfectly in character. So any insincerity being pointed out would seem to be Tatulli pointing at himself. One way or another, Tatulli is being deeply (and deliberately) ironic.
burleigh2 almost 13 years ago
Oh… and the whole “last second” magical answer about wiping C-3PO’s memory was just a little too… idiotically simple of an ending that it was a let down. :-s
Decepticomic about 3 years ago
Next time, leave him out there.