
- Time
- Post link
I believe you just did ;)
I don't know what to make of the OP.
My first thought was that he's some sort of plant to make the pro-OUT camp look bad. But of course, this wouldn't be the place to do it - it would have much more destructive impact at TF.n or some such. Unless this is a form of seeding where he later goes on to TF.n and pulls the same act, claiming he's also a poster at OT.com, thus giving him greater credibility with the idiots there.
Socks, plants, rival camps of fans, suppressing cinematic history - my God, GL is totally insane.
Want to book yourself or a guest on THE VFP Show? PM me!
vote_for_palpatine said:Socks, plants, rival camps of fans, suppressing cinematic history - my God, Steven Spielberg is totally insane.
there, fixed it for you.
later
-1
[no GOUT in CED?-> GOUT CED]
Lucas lives in his own version of reality I like to call "Bizarro World". Where the 2004 set is perfect and the gout was good enough to placate those Older fans who did not get his "vision".
Also Jar Jar was such a great character he needed to be added to Return of the Jedi, lol what sane person wanted that!
Lucas seduced Spielberg with the Dark Side of Cgi and convinced him it would make Indiana Jones 4 better when Spielberg's instinct was to shoot it worldwide on location and use traditionally bulit sets props and models and Glass Mattes. He should have followed his first instinct. The entire movie looks like it was shot in a fucking rolls royce factory on green screen and Only us locations.
No going to Peru, tunisia, or any other location needed we can fake it all in the computer nobody will notice. I certainly did.
To this day i cannot fathom why Lucas, Spielberg, or Koepp still have a job in the film business i mean that movie was that bad.
It also sent Lucas the wrong message, the same wrong message of the prequels. It made more money than the first three Indy films combined before adjusting for inflation. How the fuck that movie made over 700 million dollars worldwide i will never know.
I understand the south park episodes message that Lucas assraped 2 franchises. Still these movies are critic proof and seemingly box office proof. any Indiana Jones or Star Wars film except clone wars practically gives Lucas a license to print money. Why else would he want INDY V. That being said i will never pay to see Indiana Jones V in the theater as my faith in Lucas ever making a good movie again is gone after 5 horrid movies in a row.
“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.
skyjedi2005 said:Spielberg lives in his own version of reality I like to call "Bizarro World". Where the 1982 ET is perfect and the original was good enough to placate those Older fans who did not get his "vision".
Also ET was such a great character he needed to be turned into a cartoon figure, lol what sane person wanted that!
Spielberg was seduced with the Dark Side of Cgi and it convinced him it would make ET better when Spielberg's original instinct was to shoot it without them and use traditionally bulit sets props and models and Glass Mattes. He should have followed his first instinct.
No lets take out the guns, and replace them with walkie takies, no one will notice. I certainly did.
To this day i cannot fathom why Spielberg still has a job in the film business i mean that movie was that bad.
again, a few corrections..
later
-1
[no GOUT in CED?-> GOUT CED]
negative1 said:vote_for_palpatine said:Socks, plants, rival camps of fans, suppressing cinematic history - my God, Steven Spielberg is totally insane.
there, fixed it for you.
later
-1
That "fix" makes NO sense, considering Spielberg hasn't caused any rival camps of his film's fans and he has not tried to suppress any cinematic history. You are just bent on trying to convince everyone Spielberg is as lousy of a film maker and as disrespectful to his fans as GL, but the evidence of this just isn't there. Before you argued that Spielberg made a bunch of crappy movies, many of which you simply labeled "boring" as the reason they suck, regardless of the awards and wide acclaim they recieved. GL's crap usually isn't taken seriously and doesn't win awards or acclaim, they might if he'd actually made some films in his lifetime. Spielberg has made a lot of films, some good, some bad, some terrible, but at least he takes chances and tries. Lucas is just a lot of talk and little action.
"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape
negative1 said:skyjedi2005 said:Spielberg lives in his own version of reality I like to call "Bizarro World". Where the 1982 ET is perfect and the original was good enough to placate those Older fans who did not get his "vision".
Also ET was such a great character he needed to be turned into a cartoon figure, lol what sane person wanted that!
Spielberg was seduced with the Dark Side of Cgi and it convinced him it would make ET better when Spielberg's original instinct was to shoot it without them and use traditionally bulit sets props and models and Glass Mattes. He should have followed his first instinct.
No lets take out the guns, and replace them with walkie takies, no one will notice. I certainly did.
To this day i cannot fathom why Spielberg still has a job in the film business i mean that movie was that bad.
again, a few corrections..
later
-1
This one is so stupid I am not even going to comment.
"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape
I believe you just did ;)
skyjedi2005 said:No going to Peru, tunisia, or any other location needed we can fake it all in the computer nobody will notice. I certainly did.
gee, you must not have looked very hard.. or you get fooled easily..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Jones_and_the_Kingdom_of_the_Crystal_Skull
--------------------------------------------------------
Afterwards, they filmed scenes set in the Peruvian jungles in Hilo, Hawaii until August. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is the biggest film shot in Hawaii since Waterworld, and was estimated to generate $22 million to $45 million in the local economy. Because of an approaching hurricane, Spielberg was unable to shoot a fight at a waterfall, so he sent the second unit to film shots of Brazil's and Argentina's Iguazu Falls.
===================================
Yeah, i guess Brazil, and Argentina are part of the US now?
i'm not sure if you actually watch the films you criticize...
later
-1
[no GOUT in CED?-> GOUT CED]
"Visual effects supervisor Pablo Helman (who worked on Lucas' Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace and Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones, as well as Spielberg's War of the Worlds and Munich) traveled to Brazil and Argentina to photograph elements that were composited into the final images.[56]"
Sending one guy to shoot still photographs to composite in cgi hardly counts as going on a location shoot so you can keep dreaming. Also Hawai is a part of the us.
“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.
skyjedi2005 said:"Visual effects supervisor Pablo Helman (who worked on Lucas' Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace and Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones, as well as Spielberg's War of the Worlds and Munich) traveled to Brazil and Argentina to photograph elements that were composited into the final images.[56]"
Sending one guy to shoot still photographs to composite in cgi hardly counts as going on a location shoot so you can keep dreaming. Also Hawai is a part of the us.
your original criticism was that they didn't go anywhere outside the US to shoot the film,
i just wanted to clarify that it was wrong the way you stated it. obviously they did.
later
-1
[no GOUT in CED?-> GOUT CED]
Typically when we say "shoot the film" we mean actors and scenes being filmed with cameras. As far as I know, the term "shoot the film" has never been used to refer to a photographer going on location to take photographs.
For example, if I were to make a film, and let's say sometime during the making of my film I go on vacation to London and take a few photographs and later incorporate those pictures into my film, could I really say that my movie was filmed on location in London even though all the actual filming was done in the states?
"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape
Wow see C3PX got what i meant.
Of course i meant that ford spielberg and the film crew had to be there with the A camera. And of course it was a complaint based on the abundance and overuse of cgi in the film that Spielberg was going to do old school and chickened out at the last minute.
The film has that overly bright washed out look to it and is not consistant at all with Douglas Slocombes cinematography on the old film trilogy. It has that prequels look to it. The same butchered recolor job Lucas did to the 2004 trilogy to make it match, crushed whites and Blacks and video game colors.
When is someone going to shoot a film the old school way, and even if it fails i would pay to see it because i like models, motion control and puppets rather than cgi.
Of course it was unrealistic to think no cgi would be used but it could have been used more sparingly and effectively and not drawn attention to itself. That is the problem of the new ILM versus the old ILM. Old ILM cared to keep things consistant and not pull you out of the movie, while the new crew of kids just want jazzed up cgi bubblegum crap that shows the work they have done but does nothing for the plot. This actually goes against a rule Lucas himself made in 1983 documentary from star wars to jedi. If you don't believe me then go watch it.
I dread that word Elements that was in the quote i used. Like When Rob Coleman talked about needing to get all the elements for Jar Jar.
The prequels were not consistant with the original trilogy. I might have cost three times as much to shoot all three on film and use models, motion control, puppets, blue screen, Glass Mattes and composite things optically instead of digitally. But at least Indiana Jones 4 and the new prequels would have remained consistant. That being said the worst part of the new movies was not the overuse of cgi it was a lack of likeable characters a story you cared about or a good script that fucked these movies up.
So you want me to go and say it then fine, George Lucas raped my childhood with cgi. And i am prepared for my star trek memories to be ruined also next year by ILM with the new cgi crap.
Compare and contrast the First ILM Special Effects book with the later into the digital realm. The first one has beautifully crafted shots of models and matte paintings and effects. The second book is filled with cartoon like fake cgi, and should be thrown in the trash. Hey guess which book my library has on file for historical record of motion picture production the first book. They never bothered buying that cgi mess.
I don't want digital millenium Falcons, X-wings or the starship enterprise i want the old models or nothing.
Cgi might be up to snuff barely for cartoons or videogames but is not nearly lifelike or realistic enough for live action movies yet.
These may be fictional stories and not real. But a hand built model can be seen by the eyes to be real, and if at home you build model kits you can feel and touch the models and they are real tactile objects. Not so with 1's and 0's.
People wonder why Lucas does not get a pass like peter jackson who directed lord of the rings which also was abundant with cgi. Because he had real sets, and actually shot on location and they actually built highly detailed models that can be seen on the dvds special features. This stuff could have all been created in the computer but only at the sacrifice of the story feeling real and authentic.
So they built lots of Models and sets for Episode 1. and went to tunisia, and italy. But the way the image is too bright and overly saturated people who watch it think it was all shot on a computer. It was the only prequel shot on 35mm film. The person responsible for the final color grading should be fired. The colors look nothing like 1977 star wars.
I am really surprised some fanedit has not been done to make the colors like the old trilogy. To edit out the majority of unecessary plot or cgi. Maybe it would be a ok movie. Episode II is just a mess. and three is ok but unforgivable that Lucas could not pull off anakins turn into vader and make it believable. But he is not an actors director. Someone like Christopher Nolan could have pulled it off but not Lucas.
And for a film series like 1-3 that could have been serious in tone and Shakeperean in its story, or like a greek tragedy or epic Lucas decided for it to be childish and mostly forgettable, be marketed to the lowest common denominator for profit and happy meals and action figures. There was a good story there somewhere with the right writers and directors, we could have had a trilogy not only match up to the oot but possibly surpass it.
There are films i constantly rewatch and those i don't.
Movies that go into the never watch pile:
Indiana Jones IV
Clone Wars 2008
Temple of Doom
Star Wars episodes 1-3
Batman forever, batman and robin
The redo of THX 1138
Redone American graffiti that had new cgi opening added
Star wars 1997 and 2004 special editions.
Star trek Nemesis
movies i always get around to watching again:
Raiders of the Lost ark
Jaws
Et
Clone encounters of the third kind
The last Crusade
Back to the Future
star wars
The Empire stikes back
return of the jedi
Lord of the rings trilogy
Superman donner 78
batman begins
Original Graffiti Home video release
Original THX 1138
star trek movies 1-6
Almost all modern cinema is pure garbage. There will be only three watchable films this year for me Dark Knight, Iron Man and Quantum of Solace. I wish i could get my money back for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of, the temple of the crystal turd
Narnia 2 sucked as well.
Star Trek next year had better not suck as sci fi is dying for a rebirth after the lackluster prequels.
And as much as trek Fans hate on enterprise is was actually better than Lucas prequels, but the retconning was just as bad if not worse in enterprise than in episode 1.
even the one big draw for even sucky star wars films the lighsaber duels were fucked up for episode 2 especially, and bad to passable in episode 3. While the duel in menace was probably the only thing i liked about the movie. As Ray Park is a real martial artist. Though the duel had to be filmed in slow motion for Ewan to keep up with him. In Three even though Hayden lifted weights and gained muscle for the part he still came off as a wimp, and Ewan was still ok. Though you really could not focus on the duel because the cgi backgrounds were so distracting (ooh look at that fake cgi lava) and the speed of motion was too fast and they had the same color lightsaber.
I know Return of the Jedi was entirely shot in the US, except for the soundstages in London, And Star Wars and Raiders Reshoots were in Death Valley. That a lot of Last Crusade was shot in the usa. The motocycle chase was filmed on Lucas valley road in california and not in germany,lol.
I guess this is typical hollywood stuff though. The sixties batman cave was shot in an old salt mine from what i have heard. And of Course those fake paper mache props and planets were built right under the hot lights on Paramounts sound stage for star trek.
Too bad we owe the era of bad cgi fakery to a mostly entertaining film Jurassic Park. It truly created a monster, made Lucas go gaga for cgi "ooh, ah. Yes that looks faker than it did before i'm sold, how much time and money does it save me."
“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.
skyjedi2005 said: Indiana Jones fans and star wars fans had their childhoods raped by Lucas and Spielberg, lol. Just wait til next year when Gene Roddenberry rolls in his grave and the trekkies childhoods are raped by jj abrams.
Once again skyjedi2005, I share your feeling on things.
JJ Abrams is pulling a Lucas.
JJ Abrams and the writers of the new star trek (Roberto Orci & Alex Kurtzman) are friends with both Lucas and Spielberg.
JJ Abrams even met with Lucas to talk Trek (not Roddenberry's family or good people who work on and know star trek).
I am both a Star Wars:OOT fan and Star Trek:TOS fan. I'm in a double hell.
Just look at this (the ibridge from JJ's Star Trek):
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm4164654080/tt0796366
Trek fans rip on Star Trek: Enterprise, but Star Trek: Enterprise designs was way more true to the canon of trek.
The writers of JJ's Star Trek (Roberto Orci & Alex Kurtzman) wrote The Island which stole from The Clonus Horror which was on Mystery Science Theater 3000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parts:_The_Clonus_Horror
Roberto Orci & Alex Kurtzman are known for bad writing and steeling some movies.
Also The JJ's star trek movie has a so-called fan site, but is really a shill just like TF.N called trekmovie.com
I have been banned from both TF.N and trekmovie.com just for saying I did not like things about the star wars prequels or the JJ's star trek movie.
I know the bridge looks awful, the christmas lights are none too appealing to me.
All the actors look like they belong on some teen show like smallville and not star trek, especially Pine.
The overly bright and rediculous design is actually reminding me of sci fi's flash gordon from 2007, with a little bit of the phantom menace and the apple ipod store for good measure,lol.
We have not even seen the cgi enterprise yet wait for the trailer and cringe since the Kelvin Looked like a ship designed for a ps2 game.
Zoe Zaldana looks hot as Uhura, still i am not sold on this reboot.
Heroes fans will show up because Sylar is in it.
The one major concession they made to tos fans was having leonard nimoy come onboard to play spock. Reportedly he is only in twenty minutes of the movie. He makes a good spokesman for jj though.
To be fair to JJ i liked Lost and Alias. But MI 3 sucked. This guy just does not have the directing chops to pull off this movie. He is in the same territory of a first time director as Whedon who made Serenity. I'm probably alone in this but i think they are tv guys and not movie directors.
As first time trek Directors go we have the good Star trek II, Meyer, III nimoy, the not so good V shatner.
Why JJ was n. meyer unavailable, why not Nimoy for such a spock centric movie.
Seems to me with the young cast, the fake and expensive cgi and the JJ connection they are going for the same youth market later teens they marketed Cloverfield to, i'm fealing a pg-13 rating.
I mean he did Lost so why not a X-files movie, he made alias why no bond movie, but he is directing Trek something he has no experience with whatsoever.
The screenwriters wrote the horrible script for transformers it's not like we are getting a brilliant script Like Nick Meyers for star trek II.
I fear this movie will be the last nail in the coffin, i mean the screenshots alone vitually make it an accidental parody of tos just like the star wars prequels were of the oot.
Remember Optimus Primes Dialogue in Transformers "my Bad" classic lines like that are up their with Indy 4's "space between the spaces".
“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.
I agree about JJ being more of a TV guy, his movies have not been the greatest, but his TV shows have been hits. This new Star Trek is obviously targeted at younger audiences, going the hot young people route. Star Trek really drove itself into the fround with Nemesis and Enterprise. With the cancellation of Enterprise we saw a world without a current running ST TV series for the first time since the long gap between TOS and TNG. Nemesis, though set up with an ending that demanded a sequel, always had an air of being the last one to it, even in its advertising. After Nemesis, we all knew it would be a very long time before we saw another ST in the cinema. After Enterprise, we knew there would very likely never be another ST tv series again.
Personally, I am pretty surprised that another ST bounced along this quickly. The point of this new movie is to revitalize the series, to move on from what it has been stigmatized as (Star Trek? Eww, nerd alert.) and to transform it back into something that can turn a good profit. The whole idea of this new movie from the very start has reaked of failure. Even if it has commercial failure, it will likely be a failure to the fan community (maybe it will cause a rift in ST fans as the SE and PT has caused in the SW fans).
That is why a guy like JJ is doing this film. He is talented with gathering a bunch of good looking people, putting them into a situation involving mystery and suspense, and creating a commercial success. If it weren't for Lindeloff and the aspects he brings to Lost, I am not sure I would enjoy that show as much as I do, at this point JJ is just a name attached to it because he helped create it and worked on it in season one, now he really has nothing to do with it anymore. I don't think that is a bad thing.
As for CG in movies, it has always been my opinon that movies should be built to last, CG feel like 'a quick fix that will look okay today and like crap tomorrow, but who cares because we are not selling it tomorrow, we are selling it today.'
Watching a ten year old movie that used CG effects is extremely jolting. Watching movies and show with CG effects from just a few years ago is bad enough. I have been watching my way through Firefly again recently, and man, those CG space shots can look pretty bad at times. It is forgivable with a TV show like that, because the budget is small. But why do that for a multimillon dollar block buster? Take a look at I Am Legend, I love the book, and I didn't think the new movie was too bad, but the CG really ruined it for me, it looked so bad I just couldn't take the film seriously. Had it used real actors in make up, it would have been like a completely different film.But why should they care? It made its money, onto something new.
Some students turn in papers that were obviously aiming for an A, then other student turn in papers that give away the fact that they really don't care, all they want to do is get the paper done and turn it in and hopfully get something higher than a D on it. Movies like I Am Legend and the prequels feel like the later. "Let's get this done and get it out there." Movies like Serenity, Lord of the Rings and the first SW movie feel like the former. It is obvious that they were built to last, and that the filmmaker did everything possibly to ensure that. Ten years from now CG ants will look lit shit to even the least picky of eyes, but the tarantulas and snakes in Raiders will still creep some some people out, or at the very least look real because they are.
You can use CG on a A grade movie, it just has to be used the right way. Doing the whole movie in front of a green screen and using as few props and sets as possible gets an F in my book. It is just too convienent and in the end looks like garbage. Lazy filmmaking.
"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape
skyjedi2005 said:There are films i constantly rewatch and those i don't.
movies i always get around to watching again:
Et
well, i actually agree with some of your points, but you don't seem
to mention the mess made with the 2002 revised CG version of ET?
i'm pretty sure you didn't care for the changes in it right?
Clone encounters of the third kind
must be a psychological thing, 'clone' -> 'close'....
i like this movie, the original that is, they kept releasing more and more
versions of it, with nothing really added, except seeing inside the spaceship, and
more of the aliens etc.... the original is a classic.
star trek movies 1-6
sorry, only the 1st was Ok, and the 2nd was good, i never liked any of the rest of them..
although, once again, the originals are on laserdisc only..
you can only get the new special editions with the cleaned up effects on DVD, i think..
i havent seen to many complaints about that either..
Almost all modern cinema is pure garbage. There will be only three watchable films this year for me Dark Knight, Iron Man
dark knight didn't impress me, i liked the original first two...also iron man was just a poor mans
retelling of 'robocop'.. i can't speak for the bond movie, since i didn't care for 'casino royale' either..
Too bad we owe the era of bad cgi fakery to a mostly entertaining film Jurassic Park. It truly created a monster, made Lucas go gaga for cgi "ooh, ah. Yes that looks faker than it did before i'm sold, how much time and money does it save me."
i find it interesting how you point to a lot of movies by spielberg, (jaws, etc). and yet you
never seem to think he's also at fault for ruining a lot of current series, and using just as much cg
in movies also..
later
-1
[no GOUT in CED?-> GOUT CED]
negative1 said:...you don't seem to mention the mess made with the 2002 revised CG version of ET?
i'm pretty sure you didn't care for the changes in it right?
skyjedi2005 said:
Too bad we owe the era of bad cgi fakery to a mostly entertaining film Jurassic Park. It truly created a monster, made Lucas go gaga for cgi "ooh, ah. Yes that looks faker than it did before i'm sold, how much time and money does it save me."
i find it interesting how you point to a lot of movies by spielberg, (jaws, etc). and yet you
never seem to think he's also at fault for ruining a lot of current series, and using just as much cg
in movies also...
later
-1
Sky didn't mention the 2002 version of E.T. because it is a non issue. It sucked, we all complained about it at the time, it was lame, BUT the very first DVD release of E.T. included both versions is EQUAL quality, so while it sucked, it didn't matter because you had the original from the get go. Likewise, had the SW trilogy been released with both versions in EQUAL quality from the very first DVD release in 2004, or had a release equal in quality to the 2004 versions since then, you'd be amazed how quickly people like us would stop bitching, just like we did when they got smart and decided to release both versions of E.T. in 2002. What is your preoccupation with E.T.'s 2002 release -1? You seem to be talking about it quite a lot lately. Personal, I think it is an excellent example of exactly how a film that is treated to a director's cut so many years down the road ought to be treated.
As for your second comment about sky not seeming to care about Spielberg using a lot of CG and ruining current series... are you kidding me??? Sky bitches about Indy 4 and Spielberg along with it at least three time a day. Even more confusing is how you quoted him saying, "Too bad we owe the era of bad cgi fakery to a mostly entertaining film Jurassic Park. It truly created a monster..." as an example of how it is interesting to you how he does not complain about Spielberg's use of CG. Perhaps you are misinterpreting that quote to be Sky praises Spielberg for bringing on an era of CG over use?
"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape
C3PX said:Star Trek really drove itself into the fround with Nemesis and Enterprise. With the cancellation of Enterprise we saw a world without a current running ST TV series for the first time since the long gap between TOS and TNG. Nemesis, though set up with an ending that demanded a sequel, always had an air of being the last one to it, even in its advertising. After Nemesis, we all knew it would be a very long time before we saw another ST in the cinema. After Enterprise, we knew there would very likely never be another ST tv series again.
Nemesis was not set up with an ending that demanded a sequel and it was clear that it was the last TNG-era movie. The next movie planned was going to be about The Romulans Wars set around the time of ST: Enterprise.
Star Trek: Enterprise was bad in the 2nd and 3rd seasons, but the four season was started to turn it around (just like most star trek shows). The fact is that Star Trek: Enterprise did just as well as past TNG-era show like DS9 and VOY.
What really caused the cancellation of Enterprise was CBS buying out Paramount.
The United Paramount Network (UPN) started with Star Trek (UPN's The first telecast, the two-hour pilot of Star Trek: Voyager).
Once CBS was set to take over of Paramount, Star Trek: Enterprise was canceled and Paramount Television released all The four seasons of Enterprise which seemed fast (all The four seasons released in one year). also The Romulans Wars movie plans were canceled. allot of people who worked on Star Trek for the past 18 years were fired.
after 18 years of non-stop run Star Trek was dead.
After CBS took over Paramount, they started on new projects like Indy 4 and a new star trek movie with a "younger cast".
CBS-Paramount hired J. J. Abrams (oddly on the same day, the shill web site: trekmovie.com started).
then CBS-Paramount fired all the people who worked on startrek.com just two weeks before chrismas.
It really seems like the Viacom owned Paramount ended and killed star trek before CBS took over which has made CBS-Paramount had to made "The New Coke of Star Trek" called J. J. Abrams' Star Trek.
actually star trek XI was supposed to be a fan movie. but fans got together and raised enough money to hire a director to make the movie. personally i think it'll be good. as for the whole cbs deal, i hope they realized the mistake they made and bring trek back.
negative1 said:sorry, only the 1st was Ok, and the 2nd was good, i never liked any of the rest of them..
although, once again, the originals are on laserdisc only..
you can only get the new special editions with the cleaned up effects on DVD, i think..
i havent seen to many complaints about that either..
Actually you are wrong on this negative 1.
Star Trek II, III, IV, V, VI, Generations, First Contact, and Insurrection were released barebone DVD versions from 1998-2000 with just the movie and trailer, and all were the original verison.
Then when they release Star Trek: The Movie in 2001, that is the first one to be given the 'Lucas SE treatment' with updated effects and then Star Trek II & III were released as extended editions, no spruced up effects, just a few minutes of scenes from the cutting floor.
Listen, when you say 'not too many complaints,' that is such a lame answer, because on one hand I agree that alot of people don't see the movies enough to know the special edition from the original version of Star Wars, Star Trek, T2, Lord of the Rings, ET, but that still doesn't make it right that people shouldn't get both versions to chose from when buying the movie on DVD.
Most people wouldn't have cared about the SE if Lucas just released both in 2004 fully remastered. I have 3 versions of T2 on DVD from the 2000 release, and I like to watch the extended version, rather then the theatrical version, so that moral of the story for this is just give people the option to watch whatever version they enjoy.
I just never understood why Lucas is so steadfast in burying the OOT, because it is only SW fans that really care, and the average person isn't going to think any better or less of what version they watch. I mean is someone really going to fall in love with the Star Wars movies because of any special edition effects updates made in 97 or 2004? Its like saying people wont like The Wizard of Oz in 2008 because the sets look like sets from 1939, the movie is still a classic.
I’m an original member here dating back to 2004. Haven’t posted in years, but looking forward to posting again.
I am surprised -1 has yet to cite the LOTR trilogy extended editions as yet more examples of atrocities done by film makers to their films that nobody seems to complain about.
Another one to add to that list would be the second DVD release (the first anamorphic release packed with extras) of Monty Python and the Holy Grail which had an extended scene sliced back in. I for one was among the few who whined about that, I thought the extra scene sucked, messed up the pacing of the film, and was not part of the version of the film I was so used to watching for so many years. It was one of the reasons I did not think twice about hanging onto my original barebones nonanamorphic disc instead of picking up a copy of the new release. Interestingly, on the next rerelease of the DVD, the scene was removed from the actual feature, but left accessible through the deleted scenes menu. Guess I wasn't the only one who didn't like it.
Blade Runner would have been another one to add to this list. Notice how all these have been fixed by now? All these have received a fantastic modern transfer of the original versions. Yet we cannot manage to get Star Wars Episodes 1-3 theatrical versions on DVD (seriously, if the film isn't finished yet, don't show it in the damn movie theater, especially when you have full creative control over everything in the film and have no excuse for a director's cut), and we cannot manage to get episodes 4-6 in any quality up to the standards of this century.
"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape
You know the most moving thing emotionally about Lucas and Spielberg's Films is John Williams Music. I Don't think he gets nearly enough Credit what would Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Or Jurassic Park be without his music.
Not only does the music lend Humanity to the characters, but lends believability to them. Under Williams you believed Superman could fly, and Elliot and ET could fly. The Grandeur of Jurassic Park was almost completely in the score not the often mentioned cgi. Star Wars succeeds as well as it does because it is almost written as an opera without singing, space operas were never meant to be literal but Star Wars was indeed an epic space opera.
I find it in no way bizarre that almost all my favorite movies have had a Williams Score.
Even some of my most hated movies as well, but i at least like the soundtrack for them Like Episodes 1-3.
In fact probably the biggest dissapointment to me in years was the Indiana Jones IV score as it seems like it was totally phoned in so i don't own that cd.
One of the greatest thrills of my Cinema going life was to hear a reprise of the superman theme in the Score for Superman Returns. The movie stunk but that was quite exciting. Though not nearly as good as Williams and the LSO version it still was cool. I will also admit to getting chills from hearing the old Indiana Jones music quoted in IV but their were no Substancially new themes. Maybe Williams Composed more music than what ended up on the CD or in the movie. I would not mind hearing the complete score with alternate takes and cues and the same for the first 3 films as well.
My favorite thing about episode 3 of star wars was the quoting of the force theme/lukes theme and the throne room from Star Wars 1977. I would like to find one person who was not generally moved in the theater. Everyone in the packed cinema house i saw it with were.
Spielberg and Lucas Worst Kept Secret everytime They went from the frying pan into the fire it was williams that saved their bacon.
“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.
C3PX said:i find it interesting how you point to a lot of movies by spielberg, (jaws, etc). and yet you
never seem to think he's also at fault for ruining a lot of current series, and using just as much cg
in movies also...
later
-1
Sky didn't mention the 2002 version of E.T. because it is a non issue. It sucked, we all complained about it at the time, it was lame, BUT the very first DVD release of E.T. included both versions is EQUAL quality, so while it sucked, it didn't matter because you had the original from the get go. Likewise, had the SW trilogy been released with both versions in EQUAL quality from the very first DVD release in 2004, or had a release equal in quality to the 2004 versions since then, you'd be amazed how quickly people like us would stop bitching, just like we did when they got smart and decided to release both versions of E.T. in 2002. What is your preoccupation with E.T.'s 2002 release -1? You seem to be talking about it quite a lot lately. Personal, I think it is an excellent example of exactly how a film that is treated to a director's cut so many years down the road ought to be treated.
the reason i keep mentioning ET , was that it was a beloved movie, with a huge following,
and success also...i think since it didn't spawn a series, there isn't a fanbase as such that
is vocal, as is there is for star wars....also, as i mentioned in another thread, the release
of the special edition, didn't originally include the original movie, and still doesn't in other
non-US regions.....so there is a valid point there....
As for your second comment about sky not seeming to care about Spielberg using a lot of CG and ruining current series... are you kidding me??? Sky bitches about Indy 4 and Spielberg along with it at least three time a day. Even more confusing is how you quoted him saying, "Too bad we owe the era of bad cgi fakery to a mostly entertaining film Jurassic Park. It truly created a monster..." as an example of how it is interesting to you how he does not complain about Spielberg's use of CG. Perhaps you are misinterpreting that quote to be Sky praises Spielberg for bringing on an era of CG over use?
what i meant, was that he didn't complain up until now, and even then, he attributes it to
involvement of LUCAS.... is it possible that spielberg is also a big fan of CG? he uses it enough too,
but isn't critcised for it.....
anyways, seeing how skyjedi has yet to reply,
its speculation on both our parts..
later
-1
[no GOUT in CED?-> GOUT CED]
skyjedi2005 said:You know the most moving thing emotionally about Lucas and Spielberg's Films is John Williams Music. I Don't think he gets nearly enough Credit what would Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Or Jurassic Park be without his music.
Not only does the music lend Humanity to the characters, but lends believability to them. Under Williams you believed Superman could fly, and Elliot and ET could fly. The Grandeur of Jurassic Park was almost completely in the score not the often mentioned cgi. Star Wars succeeds as well as it does because it is almost written as an opera without singing, space operas were never meant to be literal but Star Wars was indeed an epic space opera.
I find it in no way bizarre that almost all my favorite movies have had a Williams Score.
Even some of my most hated movies as well, but i at least like the soundtrack for them Like Episodes 1-3.
In fact probably the biggest dissapointment to me in years was the Indiana Jones IV score as it seems like it was totally phoned in so i don't own that cd.
One of the greatest thrills of my Cinema going life was to hear a reprise of the superman theme in the Score for Superman Returns. The movie stunk but that was quite exciting.
I agree.
One of the reasons I wanted to see Superman Returns was for the opening credits with the Williams theme. I never saw any of the original Superman films in the theater, so I was glad for the opportunity.
I was disappointed in the ROTS soundtrack, though, especially the end credits because they sounded very cobbled together and mishmoshy. I liked it very much when they used the throne room music in the end credits for Jedi, however. Jedi is probably the soundtrack I listen to most- the Luke & Leia theme is my favorite.
Sky, I have to agree with you on the Superman Returns cinema-going thing. I'm not gonna comment on the movie, but I will say that I got the most exciting chills when I heard that iconic theme blasting out of the speakers.
A Goon in a Gaggle of 'em