MovieChat Forums > SgtPinback
SgtPinback (18)
Posts
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.
View all replies >