Star Wars coming to Blu Ray (UPDATE: August 30 2011, No! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!) — Page 101

zombie84 said:

Please send these people to savestarwars.com.

I've tried.  But they look at the excellent work you've done along the same lines as RedLetterMedia.  As just another whiny fanboy trying to dilute The Bearded One's Masterful Original Vision.

Since we got the GOUT on DVD in a Laserdisc transfer.  I wonder if we will get a DVD transfer on Blu-ray?

Anchorhead said:

generalfrevious said:

Bottom line, we will have to wait 20 years for the OOT that should have been in good quality 10 years ago.

I still say this is how we will all experience the 1977 theatrical version - à la Soylent Green.

 

 

I just died laughing. Guess this print gets recycled in the Soylent factory into new pressings of the Blu-rays.

Bingowings said:

Chewtobacca said:

Anchorhead said:I still say this is how we will all experience the 1977 theatrical version - à la Soylent Green.

hahahahahaha  Nice one! : )

 Or as George would have us believe Soylent Cyan.

This made my day.

Monolithium said:

zombie84 said:

Please send these people to savestarwars.com.

I've tried.  But they look at the excellent work you've done along the same lines as RedLetterMedia.  As just another whiny fanboy trying to dilute The Bearded One's Masterful Original Vision.

I too have tried. Logic has no effect. To quote inspector Dreyfus, "reason and sanity are things of the past; madness reigns."

generalfrevious said:

They still would not have existed had it not been for the fans of the OT.

True. But that's irrelevant when we are talking about a second run of the prequels.

And the PT made so much money solely because of the nostalgia for the OT, fueled by cognitive dissonance.

Not true. You are still ignoring a great part of the fanbase.

TPM set the precedent in blockbusters that you can make a profit despite a film's awfulness.

The film's awfulness is not a fact, though.

Monolithium said:

I've tried.  But they look at the excellent work you've done along the same lines as RedLetterMedia.

Comparing the honorable effort of savestarwars.com to RedLetterMedia "reviews", and calling the latter an "excellent work" is an offense to the former.

Alexrd said:

Comparing the honorable effort of savestarwars.com to RedLetterMedia "reviews", and calling the latter an "excellent work" is an offense to the former.

I think you underestimate the quality of RedLetterMedia's work. Obviously it's a very different product than savestarwars.com, but it's proven far more effective at demonstrating to people the faults of the PT than savestarwars.com has ever been at convincing people that OT-preservation is a serious issue. It's not an offense to the former unless you've got some really bizarre Klingon-style honor system and you either exalt ssw.com beyond what it deserves or unvervalue RLM (or both). savestarwars.com is just a website, and so is RLM.

timdiggerm said:

I think you underestimate the quality of RedLetterMedia's work.

What quality?

TK-949 said:

The journalistic quality. It's very well researched.

Journalistic? How?

Well researched? About what?

TK-949 said:

RLM is one of the greatest reviews I've ever seen.

I would hardly call it a review, much less a great one. To me, it's just big rant full of fallacies and double standards.

Oo! Oo!

Double Standards!!!

DOUBLE STANDARDS!!!!!

Hooray!!!

1. this is not the place.

2. Alex, with all due respect, we already know that you like the prequels and you already know most of us don't. It seems like you set out to retort to every single post that says something bad about the prequels and frankly, it's getting old.

Harmy said:

1. this is not the place.

2. Alex, with all due respect, we already know that you like the prequels and you already know most of us don't. It seems like you set out to retort to every single post that says something bad about the prequels and frankly, it's getting old.

1. I agree.

2. I don't set out to retort every single post about the prequels. I don't mind people not liking the prequels. What I mind is when some present their distaste/hate as facts.

Besides, I've only expressed my opinion about RLM. This is not even about the prequels themselves. It's about his modus operandi.

Exactly, then we can talk about Double Standards 'till the cows come home...

zombie84 said:

Alexrd said:

TPM set the precedent in blockbusters that you can make a profit despite a film's awfulness.

The film's awfulness is not a fact, though.

It's awfulness is not a fact, true, because this is all subjective. However, it is a commonly held opinion and a wide public census, thus making the point salient:

I wouldn't call it a majorly held opinion, nor a wide public census. I recall seeing an article about public opinion on TPM, and it was regarded as positively recieved. Even critical reception was mixed to positive reviews. Many people saw it many times in theater (I even remember some groups going back to ticket line after watching the film, in my country).

as far as most people are concerned, TPM showed that a movie can be a major success while also being widely disliked.

Yes, as it was widely liked. But that happens with almost every "love it or hate it" movie.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

What makes RLM's reviews so good is not their level of research, but their ability to clearly express moviemaking fundamentals to the layman - and why TPM fails in those fundamentals so thoroughly.

I consider myself one of those laymen - although I know something about the mechanics of film and video preservation, I know essentially nothing about the art of moviemaking.  I and many others left the theater after seeing TPM in a bit of a daze, having been bombarded with incredible effects yet also knowing that what we just saw sucked but being unable to pinpoint why.  For years after seeing the film, if asked to defend why I thought it sucked, I had difficulty elucidating a specific reason. Why? Because yes good movies connect with us and poor movies don't, but just like in any art there are time-tested ways of achieving this that artists know and use, and/or fail to use, and that most of us laymen are oblivious to. What makes effective moviemaking is just as oblivious to most of us as is what makes a great piece of classical music exhilarate us.  Yes there are intangibles, but there is also craft.

RLM's review broke it down so clearly that as I watched it, I felt like a veil had been lifted. Not only as to what it was that made TPM so disturbingly weak despite the visual cornucopia, but also by educating me on the fundamental craft of moviemaking and how it so applies to nearly every movie since the dawn of film. It is education masquerading as humor, and in my opinion as a professional educator, succeeds brilliantly.  I probably learned more about the elements of good moviemaking in that one review then I ever had learned before.

I have to agree with Alex here.

Saying that the majority dislike or hate the phantom menace is either misguided misinformation or deliberate disinformation.

These are from Box Office Mojo and Rotten Tomatoes respectively:

The Phantom Menace has far more going for it in terms of heart, plot, and human interest than the likes of Armageddon and Godzilla. This is not a mindless blockbuster designed solely to make a killing at the box office. Lucas, already wealthy beyond the dreams of avarice, is hopefully beyond that (not that he'll refuse the money...). What he has done with The Phantom Menace is to satisfy an artistic craving, and it shows in almost every frame. The director's vision and reverence for his own creation are the two key elements that differentiate this movie from 95% of the others with similar $100 million-plus budgets.
JAMES BERARDINELLI 1999

But mostly I was happy to drink in the sights on the screen, in the same spirit that I might enjoy "Metropolis," "Forbidden Planet," "2001: A Space Odyssey," "Dark City" or "The Matrix." The difference is that Lucas' visuals are more fanciful and his film's energy level is more cheerful; he doesn't share the prevailing view that the future is a dark and lonely place.

What he does have, in abundance, is exhilaration. There is a sense of discovery in scene after scene of "The Phantom Menace," as he tries out new effects and ideas, and seamlessly integrates real characters and digital ones, real landscapes and imaginary places. We are standing at the threshold of a new age of epic cinema, I think, in which digital techniques mean that budgets will no longer limit the scope of scenes; filmmakers will be able to show us just about anything they can imagine.

BY ROGER EBERT / May 17, 1999


Just as "Star Wars" became one of the most widely imitated pop phenomena of its time, "The Phantom Menace" looks like a template for a new generation of computer-generated science fiction. And unlike "The Matrix," another film liable to spawn imitations, it is sweetly, unfashionably benign. Whether dreaming up blow-dryer-headed soldiers who move in lifelike formation or a planet made entirely of skyscrapers, Lucas still champions wondrous visions over bleak ones and sustains his love of escapist fun. There's no better tour guide for a trip back to the future.
May 19, 1999
By JANET MASLIN

I didn't say I dislike it, I said it sucks.

@danny_boy: Sorry, but what you just posted just confirms that it was a weak film. Around 60% is quite bad and the comment "Lucas needs to improve on the plot and character development, but there's plenty of eye candy to behold" basically translates as: it's a piece of shit film with great VFX.