MovieChat Forums > SgtPinback > Replies
SgtPinback's Replies
They just took "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" by LeGuin from 1973 and turned it into a Star Trek Episode.
Not bad fodder. A classic morality conundrum story put into a Star Trek setting.
Why edit?
The new series fits more than what was there before.
“I sense something, a presence I have not felt since…”
When? When Lucas wrote Star Wars, you can read all his drafts. Luke's father is alive in some of them, and not Vader in all of them. The big duel was between Vader and Luke's father. In Brackett's original script for ESB Luke meets his father as a force ghost. There was no intent or understanding in '77 that Vader's last meeting with Obi-Wan was in the fight where he wounds him. Lucas didn't intend that. In '77 Vader wasn't Luke's father and his big fight wasn't necessarily with Obi Wan. It wasn't until Kasdan's revisions after Bracket died that Vader became Luke's father...years after Star Wars.
As for changing Leia's lines...again...why?
The current Star Wars canon has already pushed that Leia had a deeper connection to Obi Wan than was expressed in '77.
Even in '77 Leia knew exactly who "Ben Kenobi" was. When Luke mentioned him to her she instantly knew who he was talking about and didn't respond "Obi Wan?"
If anything the show closed that thread where Leia knew the name Ben.
Second plot hole..why would Leia, if she never knew Kenboi name her son Ben?
Surely not because of Han. Han knew Obi-Wan for a few hours and called him an "Old Fossil"
Much more likely Han would name his son after Luke.
Leia knew Obi Wan as Ben, had a connection, and that connection passed to her son.
Anyway...I don't entirely agree with the show but I like it. And I feel it's Star Wars.
Lucas never had a clue where Star Wars was going. It was always organic. He changed his mind time and again, and that started with him retconning his first movie. There's no doubt or question about this, read all his previous drafts and scripts.
They have always been, and are making it up as they go along.
No worries. Like I say, I haven't been active in the hobby for a while and I know they're continually updating things.
And agreed on the Ruger. I only mentioned it because a lot of guys wanting to get into Cowboy Living History used to show up with those, simply because of their availability. My outfit didn't allow them in our standards, but they rarely had issues finding other groups that'd take them in.
I've been out a while, but the Pietta when I was in had a transfer bar. I was looking into them earlier and saw mention of them using a new pin system, but haven't seen any of the new ones.
I wouldn't truly call a Vaquero a replica either. "Inspired by" more like it. There's a reason I handled one and never picked up another.
And yeah, I heard Uberti dropped the authentic hammer. I got mine in 2010 and I'm glad I did.
But, yeah, I agree. None of that matters and it's negligence.
Yes, it's 100% single action. The hammer has to be drawn two steps to fire, and I can tell you from experience the pull on those Italian pistols is very noticeable and like clockwork. It can be done accidently I suppose, maybe if you're storing it improperly loaded or fidgeting with it, but it'd be hard to do and the sound of the action is very audible and clear.
Only difference between a Pietta and the original is its floating pin transfer bar system which is included to actually prevent accidental discharges.
It's actually a selling point of the pistol. "Load Six" is the phrase they use in ads.
I can't comprehend how he could discharge it accidently without at least drawing it to the full cock.
Now, it can accidently fire without a trigger pull at full cock and it's something I've seen, just not with a Colt SAA replica and that's if the spring that holds the hammer in place is either damaged or can't engage. I've seen fouling cause this in black powder rifles that weren't cleaned properly, or were rusted in rain. In that case one could pull the hammer to full cock and when they release the hammer it can fail to lock and fire.
That's the only scenario where I'd see a round go without trigger.
Regardless, I agree, the shooter is always responsible. I've done reenacting, SAA shooting and Cowboy action for more than a decade and I teach safety to newcomers. First thing we always do, have someone else verify you load with blanks, never take a "cold" gun without checking it yourself with a partner to confirm, and never, ever point the pistol directly at someone even if it's cold and even if you're in a combat scenario.
Always treat the pistol like it's got a live round even if you 100% know it doesn't, because even blanks can kill and you never know if something snuck through.
No sympathy for a supposed veteran actor. If I saw him point that pistol at anyone at an event I was at I'd tackle him on the spot.
Pietta? Yeah, virtually no chance of an accidental discharge then.
The Pietta is like the Ruger, it has a transfer bar and a safety.
Not only will it not accidently discharge, as a single action he'd have to pull the hammer back to the full cock to fire.
Heck, I'm a member of the Single Action Shooting Society and I know more people with issues with Pietta's not firing than ever hearing of an accidental discharge.
It's probably BS, but depending on the firearm in question it may not need to be "Magic".
The weapon in question was a "Replica" Colt Single Action Army. I happen to own one of these myself, a Uberti "Cattleman".
Depending on how accurate the replica is, it can have the same flaw that the original Colt had, the firing pin being situated in the hammer. My Uberti has this as part of the design. It's more accurate to the original pistol, but less safe.
If you load six in a Colt designed with the pin in the hammer, you're resting the hammer on the primer of a live round. That can, and sometimes does result in accidental discharge without manipulation of the trigger.
Common issue in the 19th century were Colts going off and shooting cowboys in the leg because it was bouncing around while riding on a horse.
This is why when not actively shooting you load a Colt with 5, and rest the hammer on an empty dead cylinder.
Now, most modern Colt replicas don't have this flaw. Good example is the Ruger Vaquero which outwardly is identical to a Colt SAA but instead used a transfer bar with a traditional safety.
But, again, depends on the nature of the firearm. If it was an Uberti or something made similar to the Colt and it was loaded hot with 6 rounds and the hammer was resting on the primer, it's possible, but unlikely, it discharged without a trigger pull.
They changed it from the Lynch version because they listened to Frank Herbert's interviews and Battles of Dune Album and pronounced it the way he did.
Lynch was the one that was incorrect, which is odd because he had Herbert there to ask.
https://youtu.be/y-DD6s5uiFM?t=162
It was really fast. They had a few details fly by a lot.
I'm glad I did a rewatch on HBO Max because I didn't quite take it all in first shot.
It's shown clearly that they press the a button on their hand to activate the shield. Paul does it in training. The Atreides troops do it when they debark for Arakeen. Gurney and his men activate theirs.
The Baron activates his by pressing his ring finger. He doesn't have it on previously.
Were the Harkonnen guards dumb for having theirs deactivated? Probably. But it was clear that Harkonnen foot soldiers weren't too competent. That's why they needed the Sardaukar at least.
And you're right, it doesn't happen the same as it does in the book. The Baron in the book pushes himself away from the table into an alcove. In the film he uses his suspensors to press himself into the ceiling.
The result is the same. The answer to the question is that the Baron's shield and distance from the Duke saves him.
The Baron was the only one who activated his shield. He did so because even with Leto subdued, he still, rightly, feared him.
When he heard Piter gasp the Guard Captain darts into the room to his death, but the Baron pushes himself away.
In the book it's into an alcove, in the film it's against the ceiling.
Either way, it's the shield and the fact he pushed himself far enough away from the Duke that saved him.
From the book...
"He could analyze it now. His shield had been activated, set low but still enough to slow molecular interchange across the field barrier. And he had been pushing himself away from the table... that and Piter’s shocked gasp which had brought the guard captain darting forward into his own doom.
Chance and the warning in a dying man’s gasp—these had saved him."
This is something that would likely be covered in the second film.
The Fremen have bribed the Guild with spice to ban any and all satellites over Arrakis. They're doing this to hide their numbers and...other stuff I won't spoil if you haven't read the book.
The actual shield that extended over the palace.
The big complex Yueh sabotaged was the base shield that extended over the physical shield wall. It turned Arakeen into an impregnable fortress.
In the book it's explained that since the Harkonnen knew that the shield would be down they brought crushers (the things you see being dropped on the frigates) and artillery. That was a surprise to the Atredies as those weapons would be useless otherwise against the house shield.
Well, not how I look at it, it's how Frank Herbert looked at it.
In one of the later books, a character, Miles Teg, is 250 years old and looks roughly in his 80's.
Herbert never mentions that it affects the young, and that's a blind spot to be sure. He only mentions that it slows the aging process and increases vitality, and that older characters are meant to look younger than they are.
That said, casting out of age is not uncommon in Hollywood anyway, it's just a way to make it fit in the lore. Paul should be 15 to start.
It'll be harder when they do Children of Dune, the main characters there are 9 years old. Considering the content of that book that'll be impossible to cast the correct age.
From a lore perspective, you don't really have to consider age for the older characters in Dune.
All the nobles had spice in their diet, and it slows the aging process considerably.
Thufir Hawat is 118 years old.
The Emperor Shaddam IV is 79 and is described as a slim elegant man with red hair that doesn't look a day over 35.
Good questions. Some of them were answered in the film but I thought easy to miss if you hadn't read the book.
1. They had no eyes in the sky because the Spacing Guild controls all space travel as a monopoly. Guild Heighliners are neutral and can pop into orbit instantly. They brought the Harkonnen/Sardaukar army because they were paid to do so.
2. It's important to not that Dune is interesting because its heroes make actual mistakes. The Atreides lost because they underestimated their foes. Thufir Hawat didn't think the Harkonnen could afford the extreme prices of Guild space travel to bring an entire army. Hawat also didn't expect them to have the support of as many, if any Sardaukar.
3. The Atreides were confident in the protection of their House shield. They didn't explain this as well in the film although they did mention it. While it was up it protected the city from direct landing. Any attack would have to come from outside the shield wall. Their strategy was to bunker behind the shield for protection. Yueh sabotaged the shield as was shown in the film.
4. The fact houses have equal tech is exactly why the Atreides lost. Shields made personal combat prowess more important than tech. This is why the Sardaukar were the X Factor. One Sardaukar is worth 10 House Soldiers in personal combat. The Atreides didn't expect the Emperor to act so brashly and send significant Sardaukar forces because it was against the "rules" and would endanger his position. The Emperor gambled harder than the Atreides expected.
Short answer, the Atreides underestimated the will, finances and power of their opponents and that they had a traitor in their midst.
It was the Lynch version that had it wrong.
Villeneuve took the time to listen to Frank Herbert's Battles of Dune album and, for the most part, used Herbert's pronunciation for the places/houses.
https://youtu.be/y-DD6s5uiFM?t=162