- Post
- #153375
- Topic
- How exactly do the Sith stop death?
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/153375/action/topic#153375
- Time
3RA1N1AC
- User Group
- Members
- Join date
- 29-Jul-2005
- Last activity
- 13-Sep-2006
- Posts
- 47
Post History
- Post
- #153322
- Topic
- Watching in order 1-6 is screwing up the original SW for newcomers!
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/153322/action/topic#153322
- Time
Originally posted by: The Bizzle
either insulting or ignorant, one of the two.
either insulting or ignorant, one of the two.
what's insulting is misrepresenting someone's argument and calling it ignorant. i would be insulted, anyway. if someone were to do that, i mean.
- Post
- #153153
- Topic
- Watching in order 1-6 is screwing up the original SW for newcomers!
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/153153/action/topic#153153
- Time
Originally posted by: The Bizzle
One of the bigger problems with CGI is that everyone wants to show off that they're using it in behind the scenes stuff, promotional docs, all that. The tool is getting as much publicity as the movie is. That didn't necessarily happen back in the 80's--the studio wasn't trying to show off all their toys all that much. They were maxing out old tech and old methodology, not innovating new ones. Once you start re-inventing the wheel as far as effects go, people realized you could appeal to the "Bang for the buck" style of hucksterism and make the effects used part of the marketing. "We made this with a COMPUTER!! BUY A TICKET!!" I guarantee you that if an effects movie was released that didn't go into detail about HOW they made the effects, people would stop being so nitpicky about em. but in todays moviegoing climate, there's no way that happens. you have to have the behind-the-scenes video blogs and the special on the dvd and the hook in the movie magazines.
i think the problem with effects-driven movies is not that people are already familiar with the technical aspects, but a problem of transparency. a movie can be drenched in special effects and still not be driven by the effects. it should be driven by the writing, directing and acting... and complimented by the effects. what's happening in a lot of post-"A New Hope" movies is that the effects are either getting in the way of the story, or simply filling a void where the story is weak or absent, so you can't help but twiddle your thumbs and say "gee i wonder how many polygons there are in that computer-generated character" or "i wonder how much money they spent on that effect." if the effect were really doing its job, then it wouldn't be drawing attention to itself & away from the matters at hand. the effect would be transparent. i think the movie studios are much more preoccupied with the "bigger faster & louder" trend (which the george lucas is largely responsible for starting, unfortunately) than the audience is. and to the detriment of the basics: story, character, dialogue, direction, and acting. we all know that Van Helsing sucked, we all know that The Matrix Revolutions and Stealth sucked... they really are just non-interactive video games. deep in their guts, the 13 year old attention deficit kids in the audience know it, too, no matter how eager they are to buy into every overhyped cross-licensed videogame-to-comicbook-to-movie-and-back-again piece of junk that comes along.
but try telling that to the studio executives who greenlighted those movies, and see if they comprehend. their solution is not to give the audience good movies, but to give the audience what it thinks it wants (and ends up being disappointed in, when the movie turns out to be horrible for its lack of story & direction), then blitz the media with advertisements & promo interviews in hopes that they can grab everyone's cash in the opening week before word-of-mouth spreads about its actual (low) quality.
Originally posted by: JennyS1138
A lot of younger fans don't seem to understand that any plot holes or major changes like Vader not being the lead character in the OT are due to changes Lucas made along the way. Like if it seems weird that Leia remembers her mother, they think the mistake was made in Return of the Jedi back in 1983!!!!
In many ways this reminds me of Back to the Future 2 with the alternate reality created by Biff. The entire town has changed and Doc and Marty know its changed, but to everyone else its reality. For the millions who grew up on the OT, Luke is the protagonist who redeems his father, and the galaxy is a realistic, "used future" place. To the kids who saw the PT first, the cgi infested Anakin centered galaxy is their reality.
One of the bigger problems with CGI is that everyone wants to show off that they're using it in behind the scenes stuff, promotional docs, all that. The tool is getting as much publicity as the movie is. That didn't necessarily happen back in the 80's--the studio wasn't trying to show off all their toys all that much. They were maxing out old tech and old methodology, not innovating new ones. Once you start re-inventing the wheel as far as effects go, people realized you could appeal to the "Bang for the buck" style of hucksterism and make the effects used part of the marketing. "We made this with a COMPUTER!! BUY A TICKET!!" I guarantee you that if an effects movie was released that didn't go into detail about HOW they made the effects, people would stop being so nitpicky about em. but in todays moviegoing climate, there's no way that happens. you have to have the behind-the-scenes video blogs and the special on the dvd and the hook in the movie magazines.
i think the problem with effects-driven movies is not that people are already familiar with the technical aspects, but a problem of transparency. a movie can be drenched in special effects and still not be driven by the effects. it should be driven by the writing, directing and acting... and complimented by the effects. what's happening in a lot of post-"A New Hope" movies is that the effects are either getting in the way of the story, or simply filling a void where the story is weak or absent, so you can't help but twiddle your thumbs and say "gee i wonder how many polygons there are in that computer-generated character" or "i wonder how much money they spent on that effect." if the effect were really doing its job, then it wouldn't be drawing attention to itself & away from the matters at hand. the effect would be transparent. i think the movie studios are much more preoccupied with the "bigger faster & louder" trend (which the george lucas is largely responsible for starting, unfortunately) than the audience is. and to the detriment of the basics: story, character, dialogue, direction, and acting. we all know that Van Helsing sucked, we all know that The Matrix Revolutions and Stealth sucked... they really are just non-interactive video games. deep in their guts, the 13 year old attention deficit kids in the audience know it, too, no matter how eager they are to buy into every overhyped cross-licensed videogame-to-comicbook-to-movie-and-back-again piece of junk that comes along.
but try telling that to the studio executives who greenlighted those movies, and see if they comprehend. their solution is not to give the audience good movies, but to give the audience what it thinks it wants (and ends up being disappointed in, when the movie turns out to be horrible for its lack of story & direction), then blitz the media with advertisements & promo interviews in hopes that they can grab everyone's cash in the opening week before word-of-mouth spreads about its actual (low) quality.
Originally posted by: JennyS1138
A lot of younger fans don't seem to understand that any plot holes or major changes like Vader not being the lead character in the OT are due to changes Lucas made along the way. Like if it seems weird that Leia remembers her mother, they think the mistake was made in Return of the Jedi back in 1983!!!!
In many ways this reminds me of Back to the Future 2 with the alternate reality created by Biff. The entire town has changed and Doc and Marty know its changed, but to everyone else its reality. For the millions who grew up on the OT, Luke is the protagonist who redeems his father, and the galaxy is a realistic, "used future" place. To the kids who saw the PT first, the cgi infested Anakin centered galaxy is their reality.
i'm an old fart OT fan who's got "issues" with the prequel trilogy, but not so much of an issue with the anakin-centricity of the prequels. that's fine. although hayden's (as well as most of the actors') acting is quite wooden and the dialogue is abysmal. the focus on anakin furthers the sort-of "oedipus rex"-ish tragedy (minus the incest of oedipus) hinted at in the OT. luke discovers that he's the son of the second most evil man in the galaxy and he's destined to destroy him. well, redeem anakin by destroying vader. that's pretty messed up. the idea of the cruel inevitability of fate, and the parallels running between the two trilogies (in terms of character, relationships, plot), is very greek. there are echoes of shakespeare too (macbeth, hamlet, etc). i do like the fact that there is a classical complexity to it. the problem for me is that lucas didn't have the full 1-through-6 plot worked out from the start, so there's a whole lot of clumsy tying-up of loose ends, like the "oh by the way, i've been chatting with qui-gonn's ghost" and "yoda and chewbacca are BFFs" angles, midichlorians, continuity errors and such. it walks a fine line between being a million times better & smarter than Flash Gordon, and being a dumbed-down worse-plotted Dune.
- Post
- #152854
- Topic
- Watching in order 1-6 is screwing up the original SW for newcomers!
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/152854/action/topic#152854
- Time
Originally posted by: Kaal-Jhyy
Personaly, I've always adviced people who haven't seen any Star Wars film to watch first the original trilogy, and then the prequels.
Just for the "I am your father" plot, I think it's best to don't know that Vader is Luke's father before seeing the original trilogy.
Just my point of view...
Personaly, I've always adviced people who haven't seen any Star Wars film to watch first the original trilogy, and then the prequels.
Just for the "I am your father" plot, I think it's best to don't know that Vader is Luke's father before seeing the original trilogy.
Just my point of view...
also: Yoda and Chewbacca are homies from back in tha day? WTF??? surely you jest, mister lucas.
- Post
- #152510
- Topic
- George Lucas Raped My Childhood - the song
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/152510/action/topic#152510
- Time
- Post
- #152480
- Topic
- Serenity
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/152480/action/topic#152480
- Time
Originally posted by: MeBeJedi
That's an odd focus on River, and where's the rest of the ensemble cast?
I think a certain Photoshop artist might have a crush...
That's an odd focus on River, and where's the rest of the ensemble cast?
I think a certain Photoshop artist might have a crush...
either that or the marketing department follows the "sex it up" rule. i sure don't remember her chest being such a focal point in the movie. but lookit the poster: boobs! boobs sell.
- Post
- #152038
- Topic
- Wal-Mart gets Star Wars bonus disc for ROTS
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/152038/action/topic#152038
- Time
Originally posted by: digitalfreaknyc
Again, we KNEW that's what it was going to be.
Yes.
Originally posted by: SilverWook
Is this nothing more than a glorified clip fest hosted by the droids then?
Is this nothing more than a glorified clip fest hosted by the droids then?
Again, we KNEW that's what it was going to be.
Yes.
you could alternately call it "an original narration by C3PO, accompanied by scenes from the movies." i.e. it's designed as an intro to the series, for children. adults will quickly realize listening to Anthony Daniels rattle on for an hour about how "Vader is very scary"... is not like the most entertaining thing in the world.
- Post
- #150985
- Topic
- This Movie must be stopped!!!!
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/150985/action/topic#150985
- Time
Originally posted by: ricarleite
When I first heard of the DOOM movie, I instantly thought of two things: "BOMB", and "straight to DVD". It's the #1 box office in america. What... the... hell?!
When I first heard of the DOOM movie, I instantly thought of two things: "BOMB", and "straight to DVD". It's the #1 box office in america. What... the... hell?!
it isn't difficult to debut at the #1 position in america. the movie industry currently operates on the idea that blitz-advertising can outrun word-of-mouth. i.e. word-of-mouth is slow, so if the movie sucks, they just need to advertise it more in order to get people's money before they hear how bad it is. they also rush bad movies to DVD, further demonstrating the outrun-word-of-mouth idea. for example, xXx 2: state of the union came out on dvd literally just several weeks after it ran in theaters.
also, it isn't difficult to reach the position of "#1 ________ movie of all time" and claim that a movie made x times as much box office $$$ as star wars. for example meet the fockers was #1 live-action comedy of all time. made more money than any other live-action comedy. but that's only true if you don't consider economic inflation, and the fact that a movie ticket costs about $9 or $10 USD, whereas there used to be a time when you could go to the theater for 25 cents.
it has a lot to do with corporatization and the fast-food-chain effect, too. up till the early 1980s, there were a lot of drive-in theaters and independent theaters in the u.s.a. so it was easy for independent film-makers to get funding for a cheap little movie and have it distributed throughout various regions of the u.s.a. but they didn't need to get national distribution to make a modest profit. then most of the drive-ins closed, most of the indie film-makers started doing straight-to-VHS, and all of the theaters are now owned by a few big chains. so now there are less than a dozen films showing in mainstream theaters in the u.s.a. at any given time. people used to have a lot more to choose from... they could see hollywood movies, american independent movies, foreign independent movies dubbed into english... but now the selection is very, very narrow. people have relatively few choices, when they go to the movie theater now. it's no wonder that something like DOOM or meet the fockers is able to reach #1 so easily. it's no wonder that mcdonald's hamburgers are #1, when they're certainly not the best food in the world... they're not even the best hamburgers.
- Post
- #150718
- Topic
- Keylogger
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/150718/action/topic#150718
- Time
Originally posted by: Mackey256
I'm guessing that no one knows about these then huh?
I'm guessing that no one knows about these then huh?
*raises hand* i don't! i've never tried to spy on anyone's computer though.
- Post
- #150717
- Topic
- This Movie must be stopped!!!!
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/150717/action/topic#150717
- Time
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
The first movie, First Blood, was actually a really good social comentary movie with pretty much no relation to it's action packed sequels. I wouldn't call Rambo a psycho though, he was an anti hero - a character to sypathise with
oh i don't think he's unsympathetic. plenty of monsters are sympathetic. frankenstein's monster is sympathetic, king kong is sympathetic, darth vader is sympathetic. norman bates from "psycho" is sympathetic too. even hitler liked dogs & kids, and had a girlfriend.
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
If you look at how good the first Rocky and Rambo movies actually were...
The first movie, First Blood, was actually a really good social comentary movie with pretty much no relation to it's action packed sequels. I wouldn't call Rambo a psycho though, he was an anti hero - a character to sypathise with
oh i don't think he's unsympathetic. plenty of monsters are sympathetic. frankenstein's monster is sympathetic, king kong is sympathetic, darth vader is sympathetic. norman bates from "psycho" is sympathetic too. even hitler liked dogs & kids, and had a girlfriend.
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
If you look at how good the first Rocky and Rambo movies actually were...
yes. that's pretty much what i was thinkin'. not only is Rocky a good movie, but so is First Blood. the sequels turned 'em into superheroes because it's easy to market a superhero, but that's clearly not what the original movies were about.
- Post
- #150419
- Topic
- Best teen movies
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/150419/action/topic#150419
- Time
how a kid deals with being bullied when he doesn't have obi-wan miyagi in his corner.
tracey flick: voted most likely to be an obnoxious overachiever.
he told me that he likes fischerspooner. then we went to his dorm room and he slipped rohypnol into my beer.
- Post
- #150415
- Topic
- This Movie must be stopped!!!!
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/150415/action/topic#150415
- Time
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
I love Rambo 3 for exactly that reason - it highlights America's dualism in international matters while at the same time higlighting Hollywood's habit of jumping on the bandwagon and making stupid patriotic films that double as propaganda
I love Rambo 3 for exactly that reason - it highlights America's dualism in international matters while at the same time higlighting Hollywood's habit of jumping on the bandwagon and making stupid patriotic films that double as propaganda
the funny thing about the series is that rambo isn't a hero at all in first blood. just the opposite, he's a psycho. any normal person would just keep on walkin' to the next town when the sheriff makes a point of personally giving him the bum's rush... but oh no, not this guy, he goes flippin' ballistic and kills half of the local police force. they had originally cast kirk douglas as colonel trautman, but he insisted that trautman must double-cross rambo at the end and kill him (per the ending of the original novel) -- only fitting that he should destroy the frankenstein monster that the army created. apparently the producers were not too keen on that idea.
- Post
- #150372
- Topic
- Worst cartoon characters ever
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/150372/action/topic#150372
- Time
Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
I've always hated Luanne, though. I'm so glad she moved out. What a ditz...
Originally posted by: Bossk
Luanne from KotH, though.
Luanne from KotH, though.
I've always hated Luanne, though. I'm so glad she moved out. What a ditz...
luanne is hott. i'd hit it.
- Post
- #150134
- Topic
- This Movie must be stopped!!!!
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/150134/action/topic#150134
- Time
Originally posted by: zion
This just goes to show how the movie industry is so awful right now. Instead of new, original ideas, we're stuck with sequels of sequels that should never have happened, and remakes of old films. Unfortunately, there seems to be no end in sight to this formula outside the incorrect assumption that we need more superhero movies and war epics about the middle east.
This just goes to show how the movie industry is so awful right now. Instead of new, original ideas, we're stuck with sequels of sequels that should never have happened, and remakes of old films. Unfortunately, there seems to be no end in sight to this formula outside the incorrect assumption that we need more superhero movies and war epics about the middle east.
yeah but what about the brady bunch/starsky & hutch/dukes of hazzard "based on a cheesy old TV series" movies that are not so much remakes but rather parodies of those shows? i can't wait to see what rotting and ironically unfashionable corpses they drag out of the vault next! three's company? hardcastle & mccormick? welcome back kotter! they gotta get french stewart to play horshack... that'd be funny. six million dollar man? the joke could be about how six million dollars doesn't exactly buy top-of-the-line cyborg limbs anymore. "he's the cyborg equivalent of a yugo!" ahhhhh, generation X and its insatiable appetite for kitsch.
- Post
- #150037
- Topic
- This Movie must be stopped!!!!
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/150037/action/topic#150037
- Time
- Post
- #149994
- Topic
- This Movie must be stopped!!!!
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/149994/action/topic#149994
- Time
Originally posted by: Warbler
We can not allow Hollywood to make Rocky 6!!!!! We must put a stop to this travesty. Rocky 2 should have been the end of this series.
We can not allow Hollywood to make Rocky 6!!!!! We must put a stop to this travesty. Rocky 2 should have been the end of this series.
Rocky 1 should have been the end of the series. all four sequels stunk, so a 5th sequel couldn't do any more damage than the previous four. at worst, it'll just be another crappy Rocky movie... at best, it stands a chance of doing something to redeem the series.
i wouldn't tell Stallone to stop making Rocky movies any more than i'd tell Mick Jagger "stop strutting around like a rooster, stop singing about your raging teenage hormones, and get off of the stage before you break your hip, grandpa." oh wait. on second thought...
- Post
- #149991
- Topic
- Serenity
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/149991/action/topic#149991
- Time
Originally posted by: theredbaron
Could definitely see a lot of Han Solo there...
Could definitely see a lot of Han Solo there...
YES. my biggest complaint (besides the wooden acting/dialogue) about the SW prequel trilogy is prolly its lack of a Han Solo type. pretty much every other type is hauled out from the original trilogy, but there's no Solo (WTF?). they hired Samuel L. Jackson, who is a master of dealing out trash-talk and one-liners on screen, and didn't think "hmm maybe he oughta play a bad-muthafucka space pirate"? so, nah, they merely replaced Solo's cool attitude and humor with Jar-Jar's obnoxious pratfalls & pidgin-Basic in Episode I, and then II & III are just about completely humorless. i think Jack O'Neill of Stargate SG-1 was the Han Solo of the 1990s, and Firefly's Mal Reynolds is the Solo of the 2000s.
- Post
- #149617
- Topic
- The Things We Hate And Love Thread .
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/149617/action/topic#149617
- Time
Originally posted by: JediSage
Thank God they haven't given Mo Rocca his own show...
Thank God they haven't given Mo Rocca his own show...
mo rocca DOES have his own show! sort of.
http://animal.discovery.com/convergence/whoasunday/whoasunday.html
he's just on a channel that hardly anyone watches.
oh yeah. i hate the fact that discovery and A&E keep launching new channels that are supposedly devoted to serious academic-like topics, then eventually run out of quality BBC stuff to recycle and start filling the schedules with "pimp my house," "monster casino" & "hitler's forensic cowboy shark tech" shows.
- Post
- #149431
- Topic
- The Things We Hate And Love Thread .
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/149431/action/topic#149431
- Time
Originally posted by: JediSage
I hate...The Daily Show with John Stewart. Time to call it quits, IMO.
I hate...The Daily Show with John Stewart. Time to call it quits, IMO.
i kinda hate what it has become. but i'd prolly miss it, if it were cancelled. there was a little while, in there, where it was pretty good... after stewart settled into the job & got over the awkward start, but before it fully changed into a big political rant. it has been really stale for quite a while though. i actually found colin quinn's tough crowd to be refreshing, as knuckle-dragging as it might have seemed, just because of how unpretentiously stoopid and un-demagogic it was, compared with stewart's daily show or bill maher's politically incorrect.
the "colbert report" spinoff series is off to a good start. it's got potential. reminds me of kilborn's daily show: more like a deadpan parody of a news/talk show, an extended kent brockman joke, as opposed to jon stewart's insistence on explaining everything to death & telling you what you're supposed to think. i recommend taking a look at that, if you ever wish the daily show would dump jon stewart & start again from scratch.
- Post
- #148933
- Topic
- Worst cartoon characters ever
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/148933/action/topic#148933
- Time
- Post
- #148154
- Topic
- Kick-ass horror movies
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/148154/action/topic#148154
- Time
Quote
Originally posted by: 88keyz
@ 3RA1N1AC - The point is really that we've all grown up with the full frame version of the film, not the widescreen one and to take away the top and bottom of the picture now when its considered a modern horror classic is the same as George messing the O-OT. Just like the recent "widescreen" release of The Sting, its always been available as full frame and now we have to suffer with the cropped version, just a shame. I hate that they are now altering the aspect of some classic movies only to fit widescreen TV's. Its the exact same crap that we put up with for years with Pan & Scan versions of films on VHS (and to some extent still on DVD), removing information from the frame for the sake of the masses. Utter B.S. if you ask me.
i hear that... to a certain extent. people want to see whichever version is considered the "original" one, whether that means the theatrical aspect ratio or otherwise. just sayin', anchor bay's dvd is 1.85:1, it's claimed that sam raimi prefers 1.66:1, so it's not a huge discrepancy from that p.o.v. but if you consider "the real evil dead" to be 1.33:1, then yeah you've got a case for comparing it to pan & scan. it kinda depends on whether you place more stock in the theatrical aspect ratio or in the director's preferred aspect ratio (in cases where there's a difference).
- Post
- #148087
- Topic
- Kick-ass horror movies
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/148087/action/topic#148087
- Time
Quote
According to Anchor Bay, Raimi also “personally supervised” the new DVD’s picture and sound. Further confusing matters, in the Evil Dead Handbook, Raimi apparently indicated that while shot at 1.33:1, Dead was meant to be viewed matted to 1.66:1.
- Post
- #147787
- Topic
- The Warriors
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/147787/action/topic#147787
- Time
Quote
Originally posted by: Luke Skywalker
3 - can the original version still be bought on DVD or has it been discontinued?
i think the original version has prolly been deleted from paramount's dvd catalogue (at least for the moment), but it still shouldn't be too difficult to find sealed copies. you shouldn't have to pay a "collector's price" for it, considering that it was still on the shelves at best buy, circuit city, etc just a few months ago.
there's an upcoming remake of The Warriors directed by Tony Scott (Top Gun, Man On Fire, Domino, etc). http://www.warriorsmovie.co.uk/remake/
i haven't seen The Purifiers, but it sounds like it might be of interest to fans of The Warriors. or to fans of the Van Damme "Street Fighter" movie. http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/purifiers.php
OH. and another Walter Hill (director of The Warriors) movie -- Streets Of Fire. i recommend that. it's goofy as hell and totally entertaining... just like The Warriors.
http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/streetsoffire.php - Post
- #146987
- Topic
- Samuel L. moving onto serious art films
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/146987/action/topic#146987
- Time
Quote
Originally posted by: Bossk
"The Man" tanked at the box office.
okay, as far as i can tell eugene levy's character wasn't a cop... but basically, in spirit, this was a "white cop/black cop" buddy action comedy? seems like the lethal weapon series said all that needs to be said about the genre, and there's nothing anybody can do at this point to make it fun again.
- Post
- #146796
- Topic
- Blu-Ray Attacks Microsoft, Microsoft Bites Back
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/146796/action/topic#146796
- Time
Quote
Originally posted by: Gillean
I think it was called... ummm... 'DVD'.
[/sarcasm]
oh the format that came out of a wide collaboration that included toshiba, sony, warner bros and others, and ended up being a great success without the need for an optical rom format war? a collaboration that was largely the result of sony and philips abandoning the high density cd they'd been developing? sony and philips weren't too thrilled with the number of patents they held in the dvd format, thus their marketing of the "+R" & "+RW" formats, break from the dvd forum's high-def project & attempt to lure warren lieberfarb away from it, and development of blu-ray.
Quote
Originally posted by: Gillean
Is there any previous examples of a technology winning marketshare over its competition due to, or simply with, its name being similar to the previous generation's tech?
i can think of a couple of game consoles that succeeded largely on name-recognition, i guess. gameboy color, which beat the pants off of a number of superior handheld machines (sega gamegear, atari lynx, neogeo pocket). that was probably a combination of brand recognition, backwards compatibility with the monochrome gameboy titles, and nintendo's infamous bullying tactics toward game developers & retailers at the time.
playstation 2 launched with games of arguably worse quality than the slightly older sega dreamcast, it was a near-endlessly difficult platform to develop games upon, and was continually beaten by ms xbox & nintendo gamecube in terms of visual quality... but a combo of brand recognition & sheer amount of games available kept it well ahead of those other systems in sales. now that playstation's so completely dominant, on one hand nintendo's become satisfied to preside over a profitable niche, while on the other hand microsoft have willfully thrown quite a large amount of money into xbox long after its apparent market failure 'cause they seemingly believed it'd be worthwhile in the long run to establish the brand if it means having a chance at eventually winning the brand recognition game.
also, i'm fairly certain? that intel's pentium brand continued to outsell amd's athlons at times when athlon chips were clearly matching and even surpassing pentium 4 chips on the bang-for-the-buck scale. that seemed to have a lot to do with name recognition of "sequel" products.