DominicCobb

http://originaltrilogy.com/topic/The-ONLY-doubleofive/id/10494

I feel like there’s really two ways to classify hipsters: people who conform to the stereotypical idea of nonconformity (as in the article TavorX linked to) and people who are legitimately nonconformist (and thus would reject the “hipster” classification and stereotypes). Basically the difference between trying to be, and actually being.

I’ve never thought of myself as a hipster (and almost none of the things listed apply to me) though I have faced the accusation by multiple people. I do have a nonconformist streak to me, though I don’t know if it’s really enough to fit the label. Then again, I hate labels (ex. I’m on a SW forum yet would never call myself a nerd). But isn’t that also nonconformist?

I guess the only thing I can say is “who cares?” Like the things you like. Try not to care what other people think. If you think a Super Mario ringtone is tacky, don’t go with it. But if you actually like it but worry that other people will think it’s tacky, fuck 'em, go with it.

Also, yeah posting in a Star Wars forum would seem to be unhipstery, but isn’t this Star Wars forum specifically kinda hipstery at least a little bit? “I only watch the original Star Wars movies edited to their original theatrical releases using vintage film print sources by a former English teacher in the Czech Republic.”

Honestly not at all.

They aren’t blue.

Unfortunately the problem with the right is they refuse to understand why the left acts the way it does, and then puts the dumbest shits from the left on their programs so that they can make it seem like we’re all a bunch of loonies. I don’t have the time right now to look into that video/transcript specifically, but realize that Fox News purposefully cultivates an uninformed and distorted view of complex issues.

Tucker Carlson’s a massive dipshit. I’d take anything he bitches about with a truckload of salt.

I’d watch it.

Sougouk said:

Mocata said:
Blow Out 4/5

You should check out the original British version, Blow-Up (1966).

May be in the minority on this but I think Blow Out is far superior.

http://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/1078413

LuckyGungan2001 said:

What a piece of junk!

Fixed

I think going with the longer post, rather than the shorter one, has significantly decreased its readability and shareability. Which is a shame honestly, as it could have picked up some real heat.

Not too late now…

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/opinions/were-seth-richs-parents-stop-politicizing-our-sons-murder/2017/05/23/164cf4dc-3fee-11e7-9869-bac8b446820a_story.html

corellian77 said:

DominicCobb said:

I guess it depends on what you’re looking for. I quite like the direction he took with these movies (I think the simple “Jaws in space” premise has been played out at this point).

I agree, the premise has been played out, which is why perhaps the best thing to do following Aliens would have been to leave the franchise alone. As for the direction being taken with the last two installments, while I actually love thought-provoking science-fiction, I don’t believe this is really the franchise to be doing it with (at least, to the extent Scott is trying achieve). It’d be like going to an Italian restaurant and getting a burrito — while I love Mexican cuisine, I don’t particularly want it if I’m expecting a nice pasta dinner.

That being said (and at the risk of sounding contradictory), I do feel there is some philosophical depth to the original Alien film, which comes primarily through Ash’s monologue:

Ash: You still don’t understand what you’re dealing with, do you? The perfect organism. Its structural perfection is matched only by its hostility.
Lambert: You admire it.
Ash: I admire its purity. A survivor…unclouded by conscience, remorse, or delusions of morality.

A brief, simple scene which succinctly addresses some of the film’s major themes. Is this thing really “evil” simply for following its natural instincts? Are we better than it or more deserving of survival simply because of our sense of morality? Similar to Predator, which asks us to consider the ethics of hunting if the tables were reversed, Alien asks us to consider our worthiness for survival in the face of a potentially superior force of nature. Unlike the Alien prequels, however, it doesn’t beat the audience over the head with it for the better part of the film’s running time.

I hope I’m not coming across as being combative. I’m not hating on you for liking a film I personally don’t. I’m just trying to explain where I’m coming from (maybe as much to myself as anyone).

No worries. Opinions are always subjective. Alien of course has that philosophical element to it that (in my mind at least) makes it okay to see these new films explore in their own way. Personally I don’t see it as “hitting over the head,” more just making it the focus whereas in Alien it was just in the background. As always it comes down to personal preference. We seem to agree that the Alien series proper seems to have run its course, I just think that this is an interesting spin-off.

corellian77 said:

DominicCobb said:

In my mind you can’t really take Prometheus/Covenant as “Alien” films. They very clearly don’t fit in that way. They’re basically their own series that’s simply set in the Alien universe … the Prometheus/Covenant films are far more interested in philosophical and thematic ideas that don’t have a whole lot to do with the Alien films proper. Honestly, at the core of these films, I think they share far more with Blade Runner, despite their Alien packaging.

I agree with you, and therein lies the problem: if Scott wanted to explore the philosophical issues surrounding biological vs. synthetic life and the desire for creation, he should have made a Blade Runner film, not an Alien film. This guy was spot on in his assessment:

From http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/alien-covenant-is-actually-a-blade-runner-sequel-disguise-1005606

Here, and throughout Covenant, the film is less reminiscent of Alien than it is of Blade Runner.

Fassbender is the best part of Covenant, while also representing its worst impulse, which is to be an Alien movie in name only.

by making Covenant about David, it suggests that Scott’s interests lie well beyond the Xenomorphs.

If anything, watching Fassbender in Covenant suggests that maybe Ridley Scott would have been better served to direct a sequel to Blade Runner as opposed to just producing the upcoming Blade Runner 2049.

I guess it depends on what you’re looking for. I quite like the direction he took with these movies (I think the simple “Jaws in space” premise has been played out at this point).

As for the exposition surrounding the xenomorphs in Prometheus and Covenant, this same writer mirrors my thoughts exactly. From http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/alien-covenant-alien-prequel-explains-plot-more-original-1005631

with Covenant in theaters, it’s worth discussing one of many reasons why the original Alien succeeds, because it’s a big reason why (for me at least) Covenant doesn’t: it embraces the mystery of the situation instead of explaining everything.

Yes, Covenant provides answers; however, the answers it provides are unsatisfying, in no small part because the best Alien movies don’t hinge on answering questions. These movies are at their best when providing intense thrills.

The best thing that Scott could’ve done was make Prometheus, with one notable exception: not turn it into an Alien prequel. Fassbender is easily the best performer in that film as well as in Covenant, but his story would be more captivating if it wasn’t tied to the Alien mythology. The mythology of Alien is so fascinating because it’s shrouded in mystery

It’s funny that people complained about Prometheus not answering any questions and now Covenant answering too many questions. I don’t know what to say except I think there are definitely still unanswered questions, and that I don’t think that the goal of Covenant is to “explain everything.”

In my mind you can’t really take Prometheus/Covenant as “Alien” films. They very clearly don’t fit in that way. They’re basically their own series that’s simply set in the Alien universe (i.e. look at Guardians Vol. 2 vs. last year’s Cap: Civil War - ostensibly the same franchise but wholly different in so many ways). In my mind the intrigue isn’t the prequel/how the aliens came to be element, that’s really nothing more than an inconsequential connective tissue that ties the two series together. Rather the Prometheus/Covenant films are far more interested in philosophical and thematic ideas that don’t have a whole lot to do with the Alien films proper. Honestly, at the core of these films, I think they share far more with Blade Runner, despite their Alien packaging.

Well that was a pretty great run. Wish they had a few more episodes so the finale didn’t seem so crammed, but still, a fine conclusion.

Here’s my serious question: all of the Alien films (except Prometheus, somehow) have alternate versions. Are any of them actually better?

People hate on the Alien Director’s Cut a lot, which I think is pretty damn silly. I don’t think I would say it is better or even as good as the theatrical, but the difference between the two is so minimal that I don’t know how anyone could have such a strong opinion on it either way.

The Aliens Special Edition is an interesting watch, but the pacing is just dreadful in comparison to the theatrical. The scene about Ripley’s daughter is just about the only good addition.

For whatever reason I’ve never seen the Alien 3 Assembly Cut. Something tells me adding a whole half hour is not quite what that movie needed.

I’ve also never seen the Alien: Resurrection Special Edition because I guess I just don’t care. I can’t imagine it’d change my view of the film much.

I think I’ve seen the unrated cuts of both of the AVP movies, but I can’t be 100% certain because the changes were so slight and forgettable. I’m inclined to say that they were both improvements, but only very barely.

As for fan edits, I haven’t seen almost anything. I’d be curious to hear if people have seen any good ones.

Alien A
Aliens A
Alien: Covenant B
Prometheus B-
Alien 3 B-
Alien: Resurrection C
Alien vs. Predator C-
Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem D+

Nixon fired the special prosecutor but I think that fact that we’re comparing this to the Saturday Night Massacre should really say it all (if we’re trying to excuse this as having a precedent, think about what that precedent actually is).

As for Clinton

Jetrell Fo said:

if you can show me that the Justice Department found that Comey abused his office, maybe I’ll say they’re similar, but I don’t think that’s the case (and Clinton even asked him to resign first, whereas Comey heard the news on TV).

If Trump’s trying to pretend firing Comey had nothing to do with the Russian investigation, he’s not doing a very good job of it:

“And in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story.’”

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/fbi/333056-trump-made-up-russia-story-part-of-comey-firing

Of course he’s not outright saying it (and in fairness he says the investigation will continue), but it’s pretty easy to read between the lines here and connect the dots. He wants someone in charge who’ll be more loyal to him. The White House has yet to given any believable explanation as to the firing that would suggest otherwise.

As for whether this actually means there’s incriminating evidence out there on Trump, who’s to say. I’ve always though that while the Russian interference is undeniable, the Trump campaign involvement is a toss up. It could simply be that, whether in the wrong or not, Trump didn’t like Comey investigating him. I have to circle around to John Oliver’s dubbing of this all as “Stupid Watergate.” It’s just too apt. Whether through maliciousness or pure idiocy, Trump is extending his powers in ways that should make everyone at least a little worried.

Tyrphanax said:

DominicCobb said:

dahmage said:

Ornob
Hok Kolorob

i like to listen to this when i work, because i don’t understand the lyrics.

Lyrics i understand distract me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuuvwXSK8mU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBpkb0tEe7o

Wow been awhile since I heard that one.

dahmage said:

Ornob
Hok Kolorob

i like to listen to this when i work, because i don’t understand the lyrics.

Lyrics i understand distract me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuuvwXSK8mU

Tyrphanax said:

I’ll make an effort just for you buddy!

But what about ME?

I do think “saved in the editing room” is a bit of a misnomer for Star Wars. That would imply the film was a massive turd to begin with. Most movies start the editing process in a mess (rough 4 hour or so assemblies and such). The things that made Star Wars pop during post-production (trim editing, music, vfx, sfx) are all things that are essential in any film production. Was the editing on Star Wars more extensive than on most films? Sure, considering Lucas was so displeased with Jympson’s cut of the film that he took him off it entirely, but late in the game so he had to replace him with 4 different editors working simultaneously (including himself). But what they ultimately came up with was simply what the film needed to be. “Saved” implies they turned into something completely different, which wasn’t really the case.

Point being, I think “came together in the editing room” is probably the better way to put it than “saved.” And of course, in regards to the thread topic, this was all overseen by Lucas so I don’t think the credit can be taken away there. As with the other elements of the film’s production, the key to the success wasn’t just him or just other people, it was the collaboration.

These aren’t necessarily the cleanest alternatives (or most mature), but I do use them (because I’m actually 12) -

tits
farts
balls
bollocks