doubleofive said:
"Sometime this year" is the new date.
Perhaps I'm misremembering, but I thought Ady mentioned recently that it was likely to be toward the end of this year.
Dear God...why doesn't this surprise me?
Iain McCraig:
"It's not in the [ROTS] script anymore, but we were told that Han Solo was on Kashyyyk and that he was being raised by Chewbacca. He's such a persnickety guy later on - he always has to have the best of everything - so I thought it'd be great if when he was a kid, he was an absolute slob."
And gee, whaddyaknow, looks like originally lil' Han was supposed to help Yoda track down General Grievous. What a shocker.
Words fail me. And I don't think there are enough facepalms on the intraweb to capture adequately the sheer stupidity of this idea.
Warbler said:
Akwat Kbrana said:
Well, since my QFT post was unsuccessful in fulfilling its ulterior objective (distracting the thread from the ongoing feud), allow me to instead attempt the direct approach:
Warb, Bingo, I like ya both and consider you both to be decent and upstanding contributers to this forum. That being said, Grand Moff Tarkin bears quoting:
This bickering is pointless.
May I respectfully suggest that you guys either take this tiff to PM-land, or -- better yet! -- utilize the "ignore" feature on one another? Either option would be good for the overall health of the forum/community, and would help to prevent the clear and present danger of your flame war spreading like wildfire to other threads and derailing them. I don't think I'm out of line in pointing out that it's already overflowed beyond the original district of the Dayv cancer thread (and presumably, the politics thread before that).
So whaddya say? If you guys can't get along with or ignore one another, would you at least consider "taking it outside?" Debating germane points about relevant points in their respective threads is one thing, but you guys are just squabbling. And in my opinion, it's getting a little old.
apparently you didn't read previous post. I'll quote it.
Warbler said:
sorry Ripplin. I'm done talking with Bingowings. I'm putting him on ignore. permanently. Bingowings, you are dead to me.
Dude, I don't know why you're snapping at me. Did you see that I edited the post you just quoted?
EDIT: Oops; guess I took too long in typing that, and developments have ensued in the meantime. Warb, thanks for taking the initiative.
Well, since my QFT post was unsuccessful in fulfilling its ulterior objective (distracting the thread from the ongoing feud), allow me to instead attempt the direct approach:
Warb, Bingo, I like ya both and consider you both to be decent and upstanding contributers to this forum. That being said, Grand Moff Tarkin bears quoting:
This bickering is pointless.
May I respectfully suggest that you guys either take this tiff to PM-land, or -- better yet! -- utilize the "ignore" feature on one another? Either option would be good for the overall health of the forum/community, and would help to prevent the clear and present danger of your flame war spreading like wildfire to other threads and derailing them. I don't think I'm out of line in pointing out that it's already overflowed beyond the original district of the Dayv cancer thread (and presumably, the politics thread before that).
So whaddya say? If you guys can't get along with or ignore one another, would you at least consider "taking it outside?" Debating germane points about relevant points in their respective threads is one thing, but you guys are just squabbling. And in my opinion, it's getting a little old.
EDIT: Oops; guess I took too long in typing that, and developments have ensued in the meantime. Warb, thanks for taking the initiative.
We now return you to your regularly-scheduled randomness.
ImperialFighter said:
My latest pet hate are links to sites that won't let you immediately see the info. you're interested in...without first making you endure some lengthy dumbass 'embedded' advert first! Stop this trend NOW!!
Quoted for truth.
Any other thoughts? Disagreements?
Just one. I'm not sure I agree with your very first example:
Did Lando really need to own the Falcon before Han?
Personally, I don't really have a problem with this one. ["That's just because you're a mindless GL-hating prequel-basher!", cry the Lucas apologists in furious rejoinder.] The reason? Because the way ESB is written, Lando's entrance into the storyline is entirely contingent on having a prior relationship with Han. So that kind of overlap isn't bad, IMO; it's no more a matter of universe-shrinkage than, say, Obi-Wan having a prior relationship with Yoda earlier in the film ["Luke...you will go to the Dagobah system...] So we're dealing with a separate phenomenon than, say, this:
Anakin building 3PO. Unneeded connection.
...wherein two completely separate characters established twenty years earlier with no background connection, implicit or otherwise, are suddenly fused together in such a way that credulity is stretched to the breaking point. If this kind of thing happened only once (like the first time we see it in the "I am your father" relationship established in ESB)...well, ok then. It's a bit too conveniently coincidental, but maybe they can get away with one such connection without jettisoning all suspension of disbelief.
But then things start compounding. Luke is Leia's brother. Vader is 3p0's "maker," and he also knew Greedo as a child. Chewie and Yoda are old friends. Lil' Boba Fett once fired Slave 1's superlaser cannons at Obi-Wan. FFS! The entire "Star Wars" saga now begins to resemble remarkably poorly-written fanfiction, with cheap, shallow fanwankery shoehorned into the series at an accelerated rate of speed, presumably to make up for the absence of this little thing I like to call a "plot."
So anyway, all that to say that I completely agree with everything you said, save for the Lando/Han connection. And I share your frustration as well. Personally, I think one of the more offensive cases is the Luke/Leia sibling relationship. [See, Lucas apologists? "Bashers" are critical toward the OT, too.] That being said, at least the execution of said sibling relationship was handled better than most all of the universe-shrinking in the PT.
Alexrd said:
And the whambulance is getting tiresome.
Not to be a pain in the ass, but allow me to point out that it's one thing when a fresh, interesting thread gets derailed and descends into a flurry of off-topic nonsense and repetitive whining. Such an occurrence is extremely irritating and warrants complaint.
But this is quite another matter entirely. Although in spirit I sympathize and agree with most of what SkyJedi writes, nevertheless everyone on this forum knows that every thread he starts is basically identical to any/all of his other threads, both in tone and oftentimes also in substance. So for you to read one such thread knowing full well that it's going to be, in your view, a "whambulance," only to respond with a complaint that such threads are getting tiring, is a little silly. I have a simple solution to offer: Don't like SkyJedi's threads? Find them "tiresome?" Then don't read them.
Not trying to pick a fight; just stating the obvious.
Yeesh. It's amazing how so many people can look at the words "i won't be taking any suggestions for changes/ fixes" and interpret them to mean "now eagerly accepting suggestions for changes/fixes."
That being said, is it a bad thing that this news excites me about ten times more than the official Star Wars Saga on Blu-Ray announcement ever did?
TV's Frink said:
I wish I had people.
*sob*
Stob sobbing, Bob!
Kenobius Prime --> Cancelled
xhonzi said:
They call me...
Tim?
Bob! You're back!!
I don't like fire. It's course, and it's rough, and it gets everywhere.
Yes, it is. It's from Office Space.
EDIT: Dagnabbit! Bob beat me to it.
You know, you can just call me "Mike."
I would name you all "Bob."
It might get a little confusing at times, but I think the chaos would constitute comical hilarity.
Any news about sound mixes in BD release? 5.1 or 7.1?
I dunno, but at least we can rest secure in the knowledge that it will reflect the crystal clarity and exceptional quality that only DTS can provide!
timdiggerm said:
Akwat Kbrana said:
it's important to remember that no film was ever designed to be watched frame-by-frame.
You do realize this is originaltrilogy.com, don't you?
Very amusing. I assume you're referring to our proclivity on this forum toward obsessing over minute details in individual movie stills? If so, it's worth noting that your observation actually reinforces my point. Take a stroll through Ady's ESB:R thread, and you'll see that the Empire Strikes Back (which most people, myself included, consider to be the apex of the Star Wars saga) evidences tons of technical flaws when watched frame-by-frame. So just because there's a continuity or visual effects defect in a given scene, that particular aspect of the film itself shouldn't be considered inherently flawed unless the defect can be seen in motion. Because that's how films are designed to be watched. If the PT is flawed because technical flaws can be seen when watched frame-by-frame, then the OT is similarly flawed. (Geeze, I can't believe I'm actually defending the bloody PT. Hope nobody confuses me for a TFN gusher.)
Of course, your comment was probably tongue-in-cheek to begin with, thus rendering my lengthy and unnecessarily convoluted response, rather stuffy. Sorry 'bout that.
Anchorhead: There are two problems with that movie still. First, Christopher Lee's head has been poorly composited over his stunt double (neither the levels nor the proportions are correct). Second, the lightsaber has been poorly rotoscoped: from the glow, it appears actually to end right where the ship begins. So, it would be only a foot or two long.
Yes, I've seen that image before; and admittedly, it is embarrassingly bad. But let me ask you this: Did you notice this error while watching AOTC in motion? I surely didn't, and it's important to remember that no film was ever designed to be watched frame-by-frame.
Also, as I said before, "the random [CG] error here or there is probably unavoidable in such a big-budget series" just by virtue of how many CG shots must be churned out in a relatively limited timeframe. Now I'm not saying that movies should be 90% CG; only that in a movie that is, we should expect and forgive a bad shot or two, especially if it's only noticeable when watching frame-by-frame.
A recent Dilbert strip illustrates aptly the recent ongoing exchange between many members of this forum and our DLF kenkraly2007:
Bingowings said:
Akwat Kbrana said:
The PT is badly made on almost every level.
Quite right. The only area wherein the PT excels is the production values. Technically, the CGI, costumes, props, sets (what few there were), etc. were virtually flawless. But at the end of the day, the PT is still almost unwatchable. High production values can be extremely helpful in telling a story, but when the production values themselves become the foreground and the story becomes the background, chaos ensues. The cinematic tools become the main thing, and the actual main thing is sacrificed on the altar of technological innovation and showy, flashy visual effects. That the dialogue was so artificial and the acting was so cringe-worthily bad, only added to the train wreck.
Nope the CGI is frequently flawed, the costumes, frequently bland or narratively function free and the few physical set that did exist were often screwed up by digital 'enhancements' which were inconsistent, often pointlessly showy and also flawed.
What is this even supposed to mean? When you say that the CGI is "flawed," what are you arguing? That there are frequently technical errors? Or merely that the CGI is frequently unconvincing? If the former, then you could've fooled me; while the random error here or there is probably unavoidable in such a big-budget series, I was never really aware of any abundance of such errors. And if the latter, then that's not actually a matter of the CGI itself being flawed; it's a flawed design. But that's actually exactly what I was contending to begin with, so why are you disagreeing with me?
For that matter, how are the costumes "bland?" Over-the-top, sure. But bland? Seriously?? And as for "narratively function free"...well, yeah, obviously; that's the entire point I was trying to argue. And even when physical sets were screwed up in post via over-the-top CGI enhancements, the production values of the sets themselves were still top notch.
Did you misunderstand my post? I wasn't saying that any of the CGI/props/costumes/sets actually worked in the context of storytelling, only that they were well-done in terms of technical achievement. But none of them actually succeeded in aiding the story, and more often than not distracted from the storytelling. "That's all I'm really tryin' to say."
The PT is badly made on almost every level.
Quite right. The only area wherein the PT excels is the production values. Technically, the CGI, costumes, props, sets (what few there were), etc. were virtually flawless. But at the end of the day, the PT is still almost unwatchable. High production values can be extremely helpful in telling a story, but when the production values themselves become the foreground and the story becomes the background, chaos ensues. The cinematic tools become the main thing, and the actual main thing is sacrificed on the altar of technological innovation and showy, flashy visual effects. That the dialogue was so artificial and the acting was so cringe-worthily bad, only added to the train wreck.
*self-facepalm*
Misspeller Akwat, Misspelled.
Email me if you wanna pizza role.
Leave a comment on this webzone if you wanna pizza roll.
Actually, I suppose I should've been more specific. The leading verb's voice itself doesn't make the subject's case accusative. That would still be nominative. But in Sluggo's sentence, the construction "Brad and me" isn't, in point of fact, the subject of the sentence. "That scene" is the subject. "Brad and me" is the object of the preposition "by." And always remember, kids: prepositional objects always occur in the accusative case. So, yeah, Sluggo was correct. And Ringo was wrong. But, as it turns out, he wasn't serious in the first place. You should know better, Ringo; grammar is not a thing about which to joke around!! }:(
(I would've said "not a thing to joke around about," but I'm sure one of you smart asses would've corrected my error of ending a sentence in a preposition. Prepositions, as you all know, are not words with which to end sentences.)
We now return you to your regularly scheduled Star Wars Holiday Special banter...
bkev said:
Why would you ever reject Al?
Yeah! Why the nature trail to hell would you ever reject Al, ya turkey?!