ROFLRICK said:
I'll wager that wrongfully and intentionally attempting to sway the general public's idea of something is not a good principle. And furthermore, the thing that most of us want is accessible right here on this website. I've been enjoying the OUT for some time now, in versions that indicate they were created with a lot of love and care. The obsession with getting a single man to do what more creative men are doing already (and better) is silly.
You're kidding, right? "Wrongfully" suggesting that the owner of a classic film properly preserve it?
And regardless of our efforts, a proper preservation/restoration from original elements would do considerably better justice to the film than anything we can do or have done. Harmy's wonderful efforts notwithstanding, I'm sure he'd agree.
"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars
rpvee said:
Someone on TFN said that Shmi's voice was added to Anakin's nightmare in Clones. True?
yes, thats true. It really improves the scene too.
Klingon_Jedi said:
Amusing if so; I remember way back when advocating that as an idea to make Grievious a more interesting character that actually had some sort of meaning to Obi-Wan. Really they should never have killed Maul in the first place and had him in the General's role.
So TPM wouldn't have a pay-off, and a characters whose only appeal is that he's a silent killing machine would be totally transformed.
I don't see it.
Promus said:
Take the deleted scene of Han and Leia in the corridor on Hoth - we're already told enough about the state of their relationship from the bits that ARE included in the film. If that deleted scene had been added, it just would have dragged on (like the prequels do). Not to mention that somehow, the acting in that scene (particularly from Harrison Ford, oddly enough) is VERY sub-par, and dare I say, prequel-Portman-ish.
Really? I can see why it was not included, but I think the scene is great, and the two actors are on point.
Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:
ROFLRICK said:
I'll wager that wrongfully and intentionally attempting to sway the general public's idea of something is not a good principle. And furthermore, the thing that most of us want is accessible right here on this website. I've been enjoying the OUT for some time now, in versions that indicate they were created with a lot of love and care. The obsession with getting a single man to do what more creative men are doing already (and better) is silly.
You're kidding, right? "Wrongfully" suggesting that the owner of a classic film properly preserve it?
And regardless of our efforts, a proper preservation/restoration from original elements would do considerably better justice to the film than anything we can do or have done. Harmy's wonderful efforts notwithstanding, I'm sure he'd agree.
I'm not kidding. Let's move away from Star Wars momentarily. Let's say I like a specific author. He has a new book coming out and I know that content-wise it isn't what I expect, nor is it what I want. It's not even what the author should have produced. I know it, you know it.
It's still not right to preemptively publish a 1-Star review for something you have not seen, nor do you own yet, to further an agenda. Because it's not what you want. It's just not constructive.
adywan said:
rpvee said:
Someone on TFN said that Shmi's voice was added to Anakin's nightmare in Clones. True?
yes, thats true. It really improves the scene too.
Interesting. I hope someone makes a video on Youtube of ALL of these changes, even if they're minor.
Do we have a definitive list yet? Because that post on TFN was the first I heard of Shmi's voice.
Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:
ROFLRICK said:
I'll wager that wrongfully and intentionally attempting to sway the general public's idea of something is not a good principle. And furthermore, the thing that most of us want is accessible right here on this website. I've been enjoying the OUT for some time now, in versions that indicate they were created with a lot of love and care. The obsession with getting a single man to do what more creative men are doing already (and better) is silly.
You're kidding, right? "Wrongfully" suggesting that the owner of a classic film properly preserve it?
And regardless of our efforts, a proper preservation/restoration from original elements would do considerably better justice to the film than anything we can do or have done. Harmy's wonderful efforts notwithstanding, I'm sure he'd agree.
Yeah, especially since that was in response to my post, I find the words "wrongfully" and "intentionally" to be really odd. Who attempts to unintentionally sway the general public's idea of something? And what's "wrong" with doing so? Or is it wrong simply because it's something you disagree with? How is it not wrong to intentionally sway the general public to believe that it's good?
And I really have nothing more to add to the outrageous belief that the fan preservations are an adequate replacement for a real release of the real movies. Harmy, doubleofive, and Puggo have already summed it up very well.
There is no lingerie in space…
C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.
ROFLRICK said:
Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:
ROFLRICK said:
I'll wager that wrongfully and intentionally attempting to sway the general public's idea of something is not a good principle. And furthermore, the thing that most of us want is accessible right here on this website. I've been enjoying the OUT for some time now, in versions that indicate they were created with a lot of love and care. The obsession with getting a single man to do what more creative men are doing already (and better) is silly.
You're kidding, right? "Wrongfully" suggesting that the owner of a classic film properly preserve it?
And regardless of our efforts, a proper preservation/restoration from original elements would do considerably better justice to the film than anything we can do or have done. Harmy's wonderful efforts notwithstanding, I'm sure he'd agree.
I'm not kidding. Let's move away from Star Wars momentarily. Let's say I like a specific author. He has a new book coming out and I know that content-wise it isn't what I expect, nor is it what I want. It's not even what the author should have produced. I know it, you know it.
It's still not right to preemptively publish a 1-Star review for something you have not seen, nor do you own yet, to further an agenda. Because it's not what you want. It's just not constructive.
Boy, is that comparing apples to chairs. We're not talking about an author releasing a new book that has questionable content. This isn't a book we haven't read before. People who wrote these reviews (and I admit I never wrote one) did so after having seen what was changed. Some of them, through some reason or another, did manage to get their hands on them early. So it's not just assuming something's wrong. It's having first hand information to form the opinion that it's wrong. Again, is it because the opinion that's formed is different from yours that it's wrong? Have you gone after the people who have for years been posting 5-star reviews of Star Wars releases before they've come out? Or is their "agenda" somehow not as wrong as ours?
There is no lingerie in space…
C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.
ROFLRICK said:
I'm not kidding. Let's move away from Star Wars momentarily. Let's say I like a specific author. He has a new book coming out and I know that content-wise it isn't what I expect, nor is it what I want. It's not even what the author should have produced. I know it, you know it.
Your analogy is poor because this isn't a new movie we're talking about. Great classics should be preserved because they are a part of our cultural history, not because "I want it." Not only is he not preserving them, he is not allowing existing prints to be shown.
"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars
Gaffer Tape said:
Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:
ROFLRICK said:
I'll wager that wrongfully and intentionally attempting to sway the general public's idea of something is not a good principle. And furthermore, the thing that most of us want is accessible right here on this website. I've been enjoying the OUT for some time now, in versions that indicate they were created with a lot of love and care. The obsession with getting a single man to do what more creative men are doing already (and better) is silly.
You're kidding, right? "Wrongfully" suggesting that the owner of a classic film properly preserve it?
And regardless of our efforts, a proper preservation/restoration from original elements would do considerably better justice to the film than anything we can do or have done. Harmy's wonderful efforts notwithstanding, I'm sure he'd agree.
Yeah, especially since that was in response to my post, I find the words "wrongfully" and "intentionally" to be really odd. Who attempts to unintentionally sway the general public's idea of something? And what's "wrong" with doing so? Or is it wrong simply because it's something you disagree with? How is it not wrong to intentionally sway the general public to believe that it's good?
And I really have nothing more to add to the outrageous belief that the fan preservations are an adequate replacement for a real release of the real movies. Harmy, doubleofive, and Puggo have already summed it up very well.
When I watch them, they look BETTER than anything officially released. They are a more than adequate replacement for an inferior official product! I still want George to officially release these films the way they were way back when. I just disagree with the methods some employ to urge him to do it and I don't see those methods as the thing that's going to change his mind.
This is getting a little thick, and it is not my intention stir something up. I love this place and am always very interested in what folks have to say. This conversation is going where so many forum threads go, to bickering. I'm sharing an opinion, not needling people. I'm not the final word on these things.
RoflRick is starting to seem a bit like a troll.
Sebastian Shaw as Anakin Skywalker, Alec Guinness as Obi-Wan Kenobi
If you want the OT deleted scenes, PM me and I'll send them to you! DON'T BUY THE BLU-RAY DISCS!!!
Promus said:
RoflRick is starting to seem a bit like a troll.
Do we have to drop the "T" word everytime someone disagrees with the general consensus?
Isnt the same idea that some Haljordan had with kevin bacon...erm Sebastian shaw as anakin?
-Angel
No. I don't think he's a troll. He just has a different opinion.
Anyway, ROFLRICK. My only actions have been to not buy the Blu-ray (and considering I don't own a Blu-ray player, it's not that difficult not to do, not that I would have anyway), join the "Save Star Wars--Boycott the Blu-Rays" facebook page, and to post a video on my YouTube channel explaining the situation and encouraging my viewers to boycott it as well. What's wrong with that?
To be honest, I actually understand the pro-Lucas... "fanboys" better than the other people. I understand why they're buying the Blu-rays. If they like seeing the movies continually updated, if they like the originals better matching the prequels, then of course they're going to see this as a good product and want to buy it. I don't agree with it, but I understand it. It's the fans who complain about not getting the originals released and then STILL buy it, and then complain about how they can't NOT buy it... those people drive me crazy. Those people I can't understand. How hard is it not to buy something you disagree with? How hard is it to go beyond, "It's Star Wars... on Blu-Ray!" in your critical thinking process?
There is no lingerie in space…
C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.
Gaffer Tape said:
Boy, is that comparing apples to chairs. We're not talking about an author releasing a new book that has questionable content. This isn't a book we haven't read before.
A more apt comparison would be the original pubication of The Hobbit. Once Tolkien wrote Lord of the Rings, he realised that the Gollum scene undermined what Smeagol was all about in the saga, so he 'revisited' it, altering the scene so that Bilbo escapes Gollum under different circumstances.
Of course, it's not a great comparison, really, because that was a change the fans could live with, and actually improved upon the characterisations and forming a cohesive whole with the other books. The changes in these Blu Ray don't do anything but undermine existing emotional tones and piss people off.
It works as a comparison for me, as that change always pissed me off too. And, actually, it just creates an inconsistency for something that Tolkien had already fixed. He explains in Lord of the Rings that Bilbo, under the influence of the ring, had taken some creative liberties in writing the story of The Hobbit. Maybe not the best retcon in the world, but it worked. But if you alter The Hobbit, suddenly that line no longer makes any sense.
There is no lingerie in space…
C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.
rpvee said:
Guys, we did great bringing the box set down to two stars on Amazon, but the box set of only the OT is still rather high. Could we focus on bringing that down too? People who hate the prequels and (think) they like the OT might assume the whole box is so low because of the prequels, and thus only buy the OT and still get the crap.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000PMLFRA/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=B003ZSJ212&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1NN01B781H0413T4MFEW
I posted my negative review to both, but it removed the one from the OT boxset since it was my second review of similar titles.
As much as the deleted material intrigues me I see no reason to purchase the set now and first hand just to see them.
I doubt if they will turn up for a while on Youtube etc and if they do I'm sure Lucas' people will have them removed as soon as they appear but eventually they will be free to view just as all the other officially released ones are if you know where to look.
I imagine the pre-existing PT deleted scenes weren't put out again because the effects to 'finish' them may not (and I welcome correction if I'm wrong here) be in HD.
Which would be consistent with the sort of short term thinking I would expect from Uncle George.
It seems astonishing to me that AOTC, which was billed as the first entirely digital mainstream release when it came out on DVD, has such shoddy looking and incomplete deleted scenes.
Surely that footage would be stored in pristine order somewhere (including all the See Throughpio stuff).
Maybe Lucas isn't always thinking short term and is saving further goodies for future releases which makes the "Own Every Moment" moniker of this set even more of a joke than it already was.
I just find it bizarre that someone thinks attempting to sway the public's opinion on an issue is "wrong". It's really, really bizarre cult mentality.
TheBoost said:
Klingon_Jedi said:Amusing if so; I remember way back when advocating that as an idea to make Grievious a more interesting character that actually had some sort of meaning to Obi-Wan. Really they should never have killed Maul in the first place and had him in the General's role.
So TPM wouldn't have a pay-off, and a characters whose only appeal is that he's a silent killing machine would be totally transformed.
I don't see it.
That's his appeal to some.
My memory of seeing the trailers and seeing Maul's picture in magazines was one of trying to imagine what this well designed character was going to say and do.
When I saw the finally film he said and did virtually nothing.
He was prop, played by an actor.
Just a cool looking pinata for Liam and Ewan to wave sticks at and kick.
The only scene he was in that interested me was the one in the trailer where he talks and doesn't kill anything, that and the tone poem from the trailers and music video which created the impression that Maul would be an actual character.
adywan said:
rpvee said:
Someone on TFN said that Shmi's voice was added to Anakin's nightmare in Clones. True?
yes, thats true. It really improves the scene too.
I was listening to this clip, and I don't really notice much of a difference.
http://www.dvdactive.com/misc/chris/sounds/articles/starwars/prequels/anakindreamnew.mp3
Did he just rip it wrong or something?
This signature uses Markdown syntax, which makes it easy to add formatting like italics, bold, and lists:
Asaki said:
adywan said:
rpvee said:
Someone on TFN said that Shmi's voice was added to Anakin's nightmare in Clones. True?
yes, thats true. It really improves the scene too.
I was listening to this clip, and I don't really notice much of a difference.
http://www.dvdactive.com/misc/chris/sounds/articles/starwars/prequels/anakindreamnew.mp3
Did he just rip it wrong or something?
That isn't the version from the blu-rays.
This is the true Blu-Ray version:
http://hotfile.com/dl/129725281/434ff38/new_anakin_dream.mp3.html
Bingowings said:
He was prop, played by an actor.
Just a cool looking pinata for Liam and Ewan to wave sticks at and kick.
The only scene he was in that interested me was the one in the trailer where he talks and doesn't kill anything, that and the tone poem from the trailers and music video which created the impression that Maul would be an actual character.
He was more like a prop played by a martial artist and a voice actor, which limited his potential even more. It wouldn't have been as easy to dub in another voice as it was with Vader. I find it hard to believe that they ever intended to stick with Ray Park's cockney accent.
If you're holding out for a used copy I would start haunting your local used music/movies place. Those promo copies (with the line drawn through the UPC) will be showing up and maybe you'll get lucky or the employee will be cool and hold one for you if it comes in. It'll probably cost the same as getting it new at Best Buy but, hey.
Is there any chance that the Vader No and the Krayt dragon scream sound better on the final blu ray? They just didn't sound integrated into the scene. Perhaps the youtube video that was leaked wasn't what the final product would sound like? I could tolerate those changes begrudgingly if they didn't sound so awful.