- Time
- Post link
Dear "Childhood Raped",
You're a phrase that is inappropriate and is not wanted. Please go away.
Sincerely,
TV's Frink
3D STAR WARS for the masses...has ARRIVED! — Page 10
- Time
- Post link
ChainsawAsh said:
Bingowings said:
it had a nice editorial comparing the 3Dising of classic 2D films to Ted Turner scribbling pastel shades over monochrome classics
That's good. That's pretty much exactly how I feel about it.
That's not the same. Ted Turner bought the films and changed them against the wishes of their owners. This is totally different--the owners are changing them on their own will. The important thing is that the original versions remain available, and in Lucas' case that issue has existed for over a decade and a half before the 3D release came along so there's absolutely no change in philosophy here.
Its like when Ray Harryhausen colourized one of his films recently, I forget which one. Earth Men on the Moon? But he said he always wanted to have filmed it in colour, but they couldn't afford colour film back in 1950-something when it was made. He didn't like the colourization methods of the 1980s because they didn't look good but now digital technology allows it to be done convincingly. The films does indeed look very impressive in colour. The black and white original is preserved on a second disc in a restored version for those that don't want an updated version.
Lucas isn't doing this, but whether the SE was in two dimensions or three, such would be the case, so the dimensionalizing process really is irrelevant to this discussion.
- Time
- Post link
And the paradox is that Lucas is doing more damage to the OUT than any colorizer did to any B&W film.
- Time
- Post link
skyjedi2005 said:
What could be better than seeing your childhood raped in 3-D.
I never understood that "rape my childhood" thing...
- Time
- Post link
TV's Frink said:
Dear "Childhood Raped",
You're a phrase that is inappropriate and is not wanted. Please go away.
Sincerely,
TV's Frink
Invented in the lexicon by Mark Altman if you hate it then tell the weasel why did he create it?
“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.
- Time
- Post link
I know you didn't create it. But my opinion is that it needs to go away. It trivializes one of the most awful things you can do to someone short of murder (and some would consider it worse).
Just let it go.
- Time
- Post link
+1
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Is that where it originated? I guess that makes sense. It's a really hacky bit of bad dork writing. Ironically, the more defensive and douchey prequel-zealots like to use it now.
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
I say he has destroyed star wars.
The oot is all i want. I will be stuck with a bad 1993 laserdisc port for my favorite film series. Even more insane he spent 30 million to covert episode1 for jar jar in 3-D, but he cannot afford to restore the real films that made star wars a classic of modern sci fi.
Converting episode one cost 5-10 million more than what fox spent to restore the entire trilogy from the negatives for the 1997 special edition.
Suppose a modern state of the art restoration costs a hundred million, even he could afford that being a billionaire. I don't think it would cost 50, or sixty million. For what it will cost to convert the special edition trilogy to 3-D 90 million, i think george could more than well afford it.
“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.
- Time
- Post link
Like Kevin Smith said about those guys that say "GL raped our childhood":
Calm down dude... You want to feel what is like to have a dick in your ass? I'll show you...
It's an exaggerated, and unnecessary term very stupidly used.
- Time
- Post link
Man, at this point I'd be happy with a straight HD transfer of whatever the best available source is, whatever the hell shape it's in. I sat in on a 35mm telecine session at a lab last year, they cost 400 bucks an hour. Plus an extra few hundred or so for prep and clean. You could get something pretty great for about 8 grand.
- Time
- Post link
skyjedi2005 said:
I say he has destroyed star wars.
The oot is all i want. I will be stuck with a bad 1993 laserdisc port for my favorite film series. Even more insane he spent 30 million to covert episode1 for jar jar in 3-D, but he cannot afford to restore the real films that made star wars a classic of modern sci fi.
Converting episode one cost 5-10 million more than what fox spent to restore the entire trilogy from the negatives for the 1997 special edition.
Suppose a modern state of the art restoration costs a hundred million, even he could afford that being a billionaire. I don't think it would cost 50, or sixty million. For what it will cost to convert the special edition trilogy to 3-D 90 million, i think george could more than well afford it.
He can afford it, but doesn't want to because he is still the one who decides what to do with his money. He has other plans, and some people actually like TPM and Jar Jar, be it 2D or 3D. Deal with it.
- Time
- Post link
Alexrd said:
Deal with it.
What, no gif?
:p
- Time
- Post link
TV's Frink said:
Alexrd said:
Deal with it.What, no gif?
:p
I'll let you choose one for me. ;)
- Time
- Post link
Alexrd said:
TV's Frink said:
Alexrd said:
Deal with it.What, no gif?
:p
I'll let you choose one for me. ;)
No...
...
...
...
...
...
...
- Time
- Post link
skyjedi2005 said:
...that guy who saw the special edition in 1997 said "this is like watching your childhood being raped for 2 hours."
The guy was a trekkie...But did not give JJ Trek the same treatment, when the other trek nerds cried JJ raped our childhoods.
Abrams made a Star Trek film. A new film you either like (I do) or don't like. A film you can either watch (I do) or not watch. It has absolutely no bearing on anything that came before.
A new film, telling a new story, by a new director is entirely different than a director going back to an old film and editing in new scenes and changing established, original characters - and then lying about it.
- Time
- Post link
Anchorhead said:
and then lying about it.
I'm not sure where he lied...
- Time
- Post link
Alexrd said:
He can afford it, but doesn't want to because he is still the one who decides what to do with his money. He has other plans, and some people actually like TPM and Jar Jar, be it 2D or 3D. Deal with it.
Yeah, at the end of the day, that's what it comes down to. No rhyme, no reason, just "they're his films so he'll do what he wants". We already know that. It doesn't make it suck any less.
"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Alexrd said:
Anchorhead said:
and then lying about it.
I'm not sure where he lied...
It's the whole "I wanted them to be like in 1977 but didn't have the time or money to do it." Or the whole "I'm completing the films, because they were incomplete previously." For instance he says he always wanted Greedo to fire first, but anyone knows thats a load of bullshit, he just changed his mind in 1997 and wanted to soften Han's character.
- Time
- Post link
GL is a remorseless creature, plain and simple. Once you think he can't sink any lower, he plunges us deeper into his monstrous behavior. It's gotten so bad that I'm feeling nostalgic for the SE and TPM!
- Time
- Post link
zombie84 said:
ChainsawAsh said:
Bingowings said:
it had a nice editorial comparing the 3Dising of classic 2D films to Ted Turner scribbling pastel shades over monochrome classics
That's good. That's pretty much exactly how I feel about it.
That's not the same. Ted Turner bought the films and changed them against the wishes of their owners. This is totally different--the owners are changing them on their own will.
Yeah, but I don't really care. It wasn't shot that way, so I refuse to see it that way. Even if a director chooses to colorize his own movie, as in your example, I'll never watch the colorized version, and I'll continue to wish it didn't exist, despite what the director says.
The same thing applies to 3D.
- Time
- Post link
ChainsawAsh said:
zombie84 said:
ChainsawAsh said:
Bingowings said:
it had a nice editorial comparing the 3Dising of classic 2D films to Ted Turner scribbling pastel shades over monochrome classics
That's good. That's pretty much exactly how I feel about it.
That's not the same. Ted Turner bought the films and changed them against the wishes of their owners. This is totally different--the owners are changing them on their own will.
Yeah, but I don't really care. It wasn't shot that way, so I refuse to see it that way. Even if a director chooses to colorize his own movie, as in your example, I'll never watch the colorized version, and I'll continue to wish it didn't exist, despite what the director says.
The same thing applies to 3D.
I still wouldn't have a problem with it if that was the case. It is the fact that each time Lazy Lucas and his goons make changes, they call it the definitive version and completely ignore all other versions. So 3D Star Wars will replace the SE and 2004 release as the hated version.
The Fanboys will say it is awesome though.
"The other versions will disappear. Even the 35 million tapes of Star Wars out there won’t last more than 30 or 40 years. A hundred years from now, the only version of the movie that anyone will remember will be the DVD version [of the Special Edition], and you’ll be able to project it on a 20’ by 40’ screen with perfect quality. I think it’s the director’s prerogative, not the studio’s to go back and reinvent a movie." - George Lucas
<span> </span>
- Time
- Post link
Rape as a metaphor the spoiling of a happier state has a very long history (originally it referred to seizure of property without consent so it's use in a sexual context was originally a metaphor too).
When someone talks about the 'rape of the rainforests' I don't think it underplays the awful implications of the act of sexual rape on the victims of such crimes but it is a powerful metaphor for what is happening to our environment.
The only problem is when such metaphors becomes cliched and don't work anymore.
- Time
- Post link
Yeah, they've really raped that metaphor through cliched use.
*sorry*
IT'S MY TRILOGY, AND I WANT IT NOW!
"[George Lucas] rebooted the franchise in 1997 without telling anyone." -skyjedi2005
"Yeah, well, George says a lot of things..." a young 1997 xhonzi on RASSM
"They're my movies." -George Lucas. 19 people won oscars for their work on Star Wars (1977) and George Lucas wasn't one of them.