logo Sign In

Star Wars Digital HD Release .... April 10th — Page 10

Author
Time

generalfrevious said:

SilverWook said:

Hayden delivered the performance George wanted. You can't fault him for that.

 I agree. Lucas should of based Anakin on how he was described in the OT, not some teenage psychopath rapist, let alone one named Ani

 You're not helping.

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

I get that nerds are obsessed with order and consistency and such, but the idea that Disney would make a deal to put the 20th Century Fox logo and fanfare in front of their new prized possessions is one of the more ridiculous instances of wishful thinking I've seen.

The more I think about the new fanfare, the more I think that we're all thinking too much about it. I doubt Disney cares much about the logos on the digital releases beyond making people forget that they were Fox movies. I imagine we'll see/hear something rather different in December.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

DuracellEnergizer said:

TV's Frink said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

Pederasts -- IN SPACE!!! 

 What's a pederast, Walter?

A pederast is something that doesn't last very long in jail. 

 No, the correct answer is "shut the [REDACTED] up, Donnie."

Author
Time

adywan said:



digitalfreaknyc said:


adywan said:

If anyone is thinking about getting the package for all the special features, then you need to check that the site you will be getting it from has all the special features in the package deal. VUDU are missing at least 2 of the new featurettes




Which ones?

It seems like there's 1 new featurette for each film.

And what service has all of them?


 Well it seems they are just missing one featurette now. VUDU don't have :

"<span>Discoveries From Inside: Weapons & The First Lightsaber</span>"


Huh? It's the first extra:
http://www.vudu.com/movies/#!content/658276/Star-Wars-A-New-Hope-Discoveries-From-Inside-Weapons-and-The-First-Lightsaber-featurette

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

I think that we're all thinking too much about it.

 This.

Author
Time

Wishful thinking perhaps, but not without precedent. Even a studio like Universal restored the Paramount logo to Rear Window and Psycho, films they have long owned.

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

digitalfreaknyc said:

adywan said:



digitalfreaknyc said:


adywan said:

If anyone is thinking about getting the package for all the special features, then you need to check that the site you will be getting it from has all the special features in the package deal. VUDU are missing at least 2 of the new featurettes




Which ones?

It seems like there's 1 new featurette for each film.

And what service has all of them?


 Well it seems they are just missing one featurette now. VUDU don't have :

"Discoveries From Inside: Weapons & The First Lightsaber"



Huh? It's the first extra:
http://www.vudu.com/movies/#!content/658276/Star-Wars-A-New-Hope-Discoveries-From-Inside-Weapons-and-The-First-Lightsaber-featurette

 It wasn't there until release day

ANH:REVISITED
ESB:REVISITED

DONATIONS TOWARDS MATERIALS FOR THE REVISITED SAGA

Author
Time

SilverWook said:

Wishful thinking perhaps, but not without precedent. Even a studio like Universal restored the Paramount logo to Rear Window and Psycho, films they have long owned.

 Warner Bros never removed the MGM logo from the MGM films they have in possession, like Wizard of Oz or Tom and Jerry shorts.

Nobody sang The Bunny Song in years…

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Exactly! Ted Turner put his logo in front of the films when he bought the MGM library, but even Captain Outrageous never cut Leo The Lion.

The unanswered question is, did Dinsey want the Fox logo gone, or did Fox not want to let them use it?

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

No, it's not wishful thinking to hope that Disney would keep the Fox fanfare for the existing films (in fact it's kind of annoying they didn't). I meant it was wishful thinking that they'd put the Fox fanfare in front of TFA.

Author
Time

TV's Frink said:

Akton said:

generalfrevious said:

And now Disney comes in to make us pine for the glory days of Hayden Christensen.

 

Not humanly - or inhumanly - possible. I'm hard pressed to come up with a performance in all of film history that I hate as much as I despise that mushmouthed, testosterone-deficient, barely sentient canuck mannequin's rendition of that character ostensibly meant to be the selfsame Darth Vader we all know and love.

TFA might be good. It might be bad. But in the whole of the spectrum of possible outcomes, nothing exists that would ameliorate in the slightest the absolute nadir of cinematic dramaturgy that Hayden Christensen's performance as that male character inexplicably named "Annie" represents.

 Perhaps I can explain it to you.  He's named Anakin (not Annie). Many of us have cutesy nicknames when we are little thanks to our parents, and his mom gave him the nickname Ani (not Annie).

 

Well, yes, the in-universe explanation is pretty apparent. But it remains inexplicable to me from a creative standpoint. I cannot fathom the creator of Darth Vader sitting before his yellow legal pad, pencil in hand, writing the definitive backstory for the iconic villain, considering the use of an affectionate diminutive form of the name "Anakin," coming up with "Ani," but somehow not immediately dismissing that due to the glaring fact that this nickname will ring in the ears of the Anglophone world (the franchise's primary audience) as "Annie." 

"Oh, no. Forget it," the reasonable internal reaction to that initial creative inkling would have gone. "I can't have the future Darth Vader being referred to as 'Annie.' I'll just scrap the nickname idea and have the mother call him 'Anakin'"

And yet, somehow, that internal objection was never raised. Or, if it was, it was never acted upon. Instead we were subjected to the future Darth Vader being called "Annie," or Ani" (not really any better, as the only real life public figure I'm aware of bearing the name "Ani" is a female folk singer that an ex girlfriend of mine annoyed me with all through college), even past the first film and into the character's adulthood.

Remember Luke Skywalker? Remember how great it was that everyone just called him "Luke?" Aren't you as grateful as I am that we never had to hear Beru (and Leia after her) refer to Luke as "Lulu?"

It's certainly not the worst crime committed by the prequels, but it is one of a seemingly endless list of creative decisions made by George Lucas, Hayden Christensen, and (to a much, much lesser degree, obviously) Jake Lloyd that served no other purpose in the final analysis than to strip Darth Vader of two of the traits that contributed most vitally to his having become the beloved, iconic villain that he is - his mystique and his dignity.

 

"These deadly rays will be your death..."

Author
Time

I don't think fan reverence for Darth Vader should be projected on to characters in a film who don't even know of Anakin's future.

in perpetuity in perpetuity in perpetuity in perpetuity in perpetuity in perpetuity in perpetuity

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

I get that nerds are obsessed with order and consistency and such, but the idea that Disney would make a deal to put the 20th Century Fox logo and fanfare in front of their new prized possessions is one of the more ridiculous instances of wishful thinking I've seen.

Completely agree (regarding TFA).

I can be a nerd for consistency too, but the idea of giving recognition to Fox directly before the film, a film that they had absolutely nothing to do with, is madness.

Author
Time

towne32 said:

DominicCobb said:

I get that nerds are obsessed with order and consistency and such, but the idea that Disney would make a deal to put the 20th Century Fox logo and fanfare in front of their new prized possessions is one of the more ridiculous instances of wishful thinking I've seen.

Completely agree (regarding TFA).

I can be a nerd for consistency too, but the idea of giving recognition to Fox directly before the film, a film that they had absolutely nothing to do with, is madness.

 yes

Author
Time

What seems stranger to me is that theres no Disney logo.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Han Solo IRL said:

I don't think fan reverence for Darth Vader should be projected on to characters in a film who don't even know of Anakin's future.

 Well, George Lucas seemed to think that pretty much every other kind of wanky fanservice  nod to Vader's popularity needed to be artificially projected backward onto the character of Anakin. He never seemed to miss an opportunity to ham-fistedly browbeat the audience with jarring, gratuitous, wink-wink-nudge-nudge reminders that Anakin's future as Vader was on the horizon:

- "We're going to be watching your career with great interest!"

- "Why do I get the feeling that you're going to be the death of me?"

- Vader breathing at the end of TPM.

- Anakin casting a Vader shadow in the TPM poster.

- Vader's face in Anakin's cloak in that wretched ROTS poster.

Hell, the whole Anakin-as-Chosen-One theme so central to the entire prequel trilogy is just such an artificial projection. It makes absolutely no sense in the greater scheme of the saga; it's simply a lazy, contrived imposition of gravitas and importance onto a character for no other reason than that he's a pop culture icon in the real world, utterly apart from the universe he inhabits.

What I mean about preserving the character's mystique is this: Leave some mystery to his origins. There's no reason to introduce him to us as a child. Han Solo retains so much of his mystique because we are introduced to him fully formed, yet still prime for a transformative character arc. That would be greatly compromised if we were subjected to a ten-year-old Han prancing and gamboling about the forests of Kashyyk or wherever (which very nearly happened, by the way). Did Han's grandmother call him "Hanny-poo?" I don't know and I don't want to. We don't need to. It would add nothing of value to the character and, in fact, would detract much.

And what I mean about preserving Vader's dignity is this: Give his younger self character traits consistent with his future self. An abiding intellectual interest in fascism (as opposed to ignorant indifference); a deep-seated hatred for the galactic republic in its current condition (apart from a single throwaway line); an innate tendency to violence and even cruelty (as opposed to an isolated indulgence in revenge) - all of these can conceivably lead to a character like Darth Vader whilst preserving the character's dignity. Presenting him as a churlish, whiny, lovesick and, frankly, not very intelligent man-child? Not so much (on either score). Respecting his dignity means showing him actually converting to the Dark Side, not being tricked into it. Respecting his dignity means not saddling him with a childish, effeminate nickname. Respecting his dignity means not going out of your way to craft an entire film introducing the character in his childhood (with all the various indignities concomitant with that) in which nothing at all of consequence to the saga happens that could not have occurred later anyway.

What I'm asking for is that the character be treated with the respect and consistency due to him in his own story, not the projection of an extraneous "fan reverence," which, with all his ham-fisted winks to the audience and his utterly false, tacked-on "chosen one" plot contrivance is precisely what Lucas actually did.

"These deadly rays will be your death..."

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Akton said:

Han Solo IRL said:

I don't think fan reverence for Darth Vader should be projected on to characters in a film who don't even know of Anakin's future.

 Well, George Lucas seemed to think that pretty much every other kind of wanky fanservice  nod to Vader's popularity needed to be artificially projected backward onto the character of Anakin. He never seemed to miss an opportunity to ham-fistedly browbeat the audience with jarring, gratuitous, wink-wink-nudge-nudge reminders that Anakin's future as Vader was on the horizon:

- "We're going to be watching your career with great interest!"

- "Why do I get the feeling that you're going to be the death of me?"

- Vader breathing at the end of TPM.

- Anakin casting a Vader shadow in the TPM poster.

- Vader's face in Anakin's cloak in that wretched ROTS poster.

Hell, the whole Anakin-as-Chosen-One theme so central to the entire prequel trilogy is just such an artificial projection. It makes absolutely no sense in the greater scheme of the saga; it's simply a lazy, contrived imposition of gravitas and importance onto a character for no other reason than that he's a pop culture icon in the real world, utterly apart from the universe he inhabits.

What I mean about preserving the character's mystique is this: Leave some mystery to his origins. There's no reason to introduce him to us as a child. Han Solo retains so much of his mystique because we are introduced to him fully formed, yet still prime for a transformative character arc. That would be greatly compromised if we were subjected to a ten-year-old Han prancing and gamboling about the forests of Kashyyk or wherever (which very nearly happened, by the way). Did Han's grandmother call him "Hanny-poo?" I don't know and I don't want to. We don't need to. It would add nothing of value to the character and, in fact, would detract much.

And what I mean about preserving Vader's dignity is this: Give his younger self character traits consistent with his future self. An abiding intellectual interest in fascism (as opposed to ignorant indifference); a deep-seated hatred for the galactic republic in its current condition (apart from a single throwaway line); an innate tendency to violence and even cruelty (as opposed to an isolated indulgence in revenge) - all of these can conceivably lead to a character like Darth Vader whilst preserving the character's dignity. Presenting him as a churlish, whiny, lovesick and, frankly, not very intelligent man-child? Not so much (on either score). Respecting his dignity means showing him actually converting to the Dark Side, not being tricked into it. Respecting his dignity means not saddling him with a childish, effeminate nickname. Respecting his dignity means not going out of your way to craft an entire film introducing the character in his childhood (with all the various indignities concomitant with that) in which nothing at all of consequence to the saga happens that could not have occurred later anyway.

What I'm asking for is that the character be treated with the respect and consistency due to him in his own story, not the projection of an extraneous "fan reverence," which, with all his ham-fisted winks to the audience and his utterly false, tacked-on "chosen one" plot contrivance is precisely what Lucas actually did.

All this. Totally agree.

Fans aren't reacting to the name Ani/Annie just because they feel Darth Vader is due retrospective reverence in his backstory. As Akton just pointed out, that's exactly what Lucas did repeatedly in the form of horrible forced foreshadowing. That nickname would be cringey for ANY Star Wars character. For the sake of argument, let's say we had a character called 'Anableps Calrissian', and he kept being addressed as "Annie". It would still be horrible. Him having future significance doesn't come into it.

Explaining it away in-universe by saying "but it's a shortening of Anakin" doesn't change the fact it could (and should) have been written differently.

This isn't really the thread for this discussion though, I know.

Author
Time

Throwing my hat into the ring here; I'm upset that I, II, III, V, and VI are missing the Fox logo and fanfare as much as you are.

Sure those films are solely Lucasfilm and they made them and Fox simply distributed them, but to me, they're still Fox films.

I suggest we contact Disney tomorrow and ask them nicely to right this wrong.

Author
Time

brash_stryker said:

Akton said:

Han Solo IRL said:

I don't think fan reverence for Darth Vader should be projected on to characters in a film who don't even know of Anakin's future.

 Well, George Lucas seemed to think that pretty much every other kind of wanky fanservice  nod to Vader's popularity needed to be artificially projected backward onto the character of Anakin. He never seemed to miss an opportunity to ham-fistedly browbeat the audience with jarring, gratuitous, wink-wink-nudge-nudge reminders that Anakin's future as Vader was on the horizon:

- "We're going to be watching your career with great interest!"

- "Why do I get the feeling that you're going to be the death of me?"

- Vader breathing at the end of TPM.

- Anakin casting a Vader shadow in the TPM poster.

- Vader's face in Anakin's cloak in that wretched ROTS poster.

Hell, the whole Anakin-as-Chosen-One theme so central to the entire prequel trilogy is just such an artificial projection. It makes absolutely no sense in the greater scheme of the saga; it's simply a lazy, contrived imposition of gravitas and importance onto a character for no other reason than that he's a pop culture icon in the real world, utterly apart from the universe he inhabits.

What I mean about preserving the character's mystique is this: Leave some mystery to his origins. There's no reason to introduce him to us as a child. Han Solo retains so much of his mystique because we are introduced to him fully formed, yet still prime for a transformative character arc. That would be greatly compromised if we were subjected to a ten-year-old Han prancing and gamboling about the forests of Kashyyk or wherever (which very nearly happened, by the way). Did Han's grandmother call him "Hanny-poo?" I don't know and I don't want to. We don't need to. It would add nothing of value to the character and, in fact, would detract much.

And what I mean about preserving Vader's dignity is this: Give his younger self character traits consistent with his future self. An abiding intellectual interest in fascism (as opposed to ignorant indifference); a deep-seated hatred for the galactic republic in its current condition (apart from a single throwaway line); an innate tendency to violence and even cruelty (as opposed to an isolated indulgence in revenge) - all of these can conceivably lead to a character like Darth Vader whilst preserving the character's dignity. Presenting him as a churlish, whiny, lovesick and, frankly, not very intelligent man-child? Not so much (on either score). Respecting his dignity means showing him actually converting to the Dark Side, not being tricked into it. Respecting his dignity means not saddling him with a childish, effeminate nickname. Respecting his dignity means not going out of your way to craft an entire film introducing the character in his childhood (with all the various indignities concomitant with that) in which nothing at all of consequence to the saga happens that could not have occurred later anyway.

What I'm asking for is that the character be treated with the respect and consistency due to him in his own story, not the projection of an extraneous "fan reverence," which, with all his ham-fisted winks to the audience and his utterly false, tacked-on "chosen one" plot contrivance is precisely what Lucas actually did.

All this. Totally agree.

Fans aren't reacting to the name Ani/Annie just because they feel Darth Vader is due retrospective reverence in his backstory. As Akton just pointed out, that's exactly what Lucas did repeatedly in the form of horrible forced foreshadowing. That nickname would be cringey for ANY Star Wars character. For the sake of argument, let's say we had a character called 'Anableps Calrissian', and he kept being addressed as "Annie". It would still be horrible. Him having future significance doesn't come into it.

Explaining it away in-universe by saying "but it's a shortening of Anakin" doesn't change the fact it could (and should) have been written differently.

This isn't really the thread for this discussion though, I know.

I remember seeing in the episode 2 featurettes that even Hayden Christenson thought the name "Ani" was silly at first.

Nobody sang The Bunny Song in years…

Author
Time

Right you are, brash.

Sorry for derailing things, gents. Let's take this to a discrete "Annie" thread if more needs to be said about it.

"These deadly rays will be your death..."

Author
Time

emanswfan said:

Hal 9000 said:

emanswfan said:

I could justify the purchase if the deleted scenes were HD, since I wouldn't know whether the mixes match till I go through the multi-step phase cancelation.

 Are you waiting to find out, or do you know they're SD? 

if, not sure yet.  Really doubt it though, I guess we'll hear soon.  I especially think this since nearly every BD that has special features from previous releases are just ports from the previous DVD's (although I think they usually end up being less compressed as they get sourced from the SD masters).

Has there been still no word yet on if the deleted scenes are HD or SD yet? I'm highly curious about this as well.

Author
Time

JFTR, I didn't say there was a good reason to call him Ani, I just said it's not "inexplicable."

Author
Time

Probably most of the people at TFN. A few here might to see what's up with the special features but I haven't seen anyone say they have yet. But the vast majority of comments across the web for this release expressed disappointment that it wasn't the theatricals. So here's hoping that gets through to the relevant higher ups.

Forum Moderator
Author
Time

TV's Frink said:

So...has anyone here actually bought this...thing?

 FTFM