Anchorhead

Unbelievable! 

As a long-time fan of the original (one of only two John Wayne movies I like) - I have to say goodbye to it now.  2010 marks the proper telling of the story.  Gone are John Wayne-playing-John Wayne, the poor acting of Glen Campbell, the over-acting of Kim Darby, and the 1960s Hollywood niceness and silliness.

In their place -  depth, realism, believability, and the harshness of the book.  Oscars should go to Jeff Bridges & Haliee Steinfeld.  Truly amazing performances.  Hats off to Matt Damon as well, for bringing depth to LaBoeuf. 

If you're a fan of the book, this film will be a Godsend.  If you're are a fan of John Wayne playing his usual, for the upteenth time, prepare to see how it's really done.

No two ways about it, I have to move something out of my Top Ten All Time to make room for True Grit 2010.  Going again Thursday. At least once more after that.

Strange - I dig only one of the six films (yet haven't watched it in 4 years),  remember next to nothing of the second, third, & fourth, haven't seen the last two, nor any of the SEs or cartoons.  In fact, my Star Wars world is really just the NPR version of the first story & four novels written 30+ years ago.

Yet - I probably log-on and interact more here than the motorcycle boards or the Indiana Jones board I'm a member of.   That only leaves one possible explanation.  The people.

Quite literally, a glass is raised to you all.  Merry Christmas, fellas.

swifte said:

... can't watch the re-mastered damage done to the original Star Wars movies  Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, & Return Of The Jedi.

Welcome aboard, by the way.  You'll find resources beyond your imagination.

Glass Onion - The Beatles

see you auntie said:

...it definitely (no surprise really) contains SE only images.

Same old Lucas...

TV's Frink said:

 

Maybe he's got a drive on his computer and just can't find the right driver for it? :p

Fuck, man, I don't miss that shit. 

msycamore said:

At this point we only have a "Lucas gone cgi-crazy version of both films", I wonder what he will change when Graffiti soon goes blu-ray.

American Graffiti only really has a title card change. Aside from that it's just an early version of a Director's Cut.  I'd hardly call American Graffiti "Lucas gone cgi-crazy version".  On the  other hand, Star Wars, Empire, Return, and THX are most definitely "Lucas gone cgi-crazy" versions.

If he alters even one scene of Graffiti for a Blu-ray version, I'll buy another copy or two of the 98 DVD. 

Bingowings said:

Twirl, twirl, twirl, twirl, twirl.

Saw The Fighter last night.  A true story and a very interesting one as well.  Christian Bale makes the film.  His performance as a junkie ex-fighter is fucking amazing.  He's almost unrecognizable physically and he captures the real guy perfectly (you see a short clip of the real Dicky at the end). He's someone who, while not terribly bright to begin with, comes across as almost mentally damaged from years of drug use.  It's a fascinating performance.  Oscar worthy for sure.

Truthfully, I couldn't finish reading it.  I have zero tolerance for blatant lying, which Lucas has been caught at, and can be proven,  more times than can be counted.  Hearing him take such a strong stance against the very thing he continues to do  to the fans is fucking obscene.

MJPollard said:

I don't believe this.  You're equating removing visible wires (which doesn't alter anything one little bit) to what Lucas did to create the SEs?  That fixing mistakes that don't make one single bit of difference to the film is some sort of "blasphemy"?  Please tell me I'm wrong before I start accusing you of being out of your goddamn minds.

I'm afraid I'm with Warbler on this one.  There's original - and there's not original. There aren't varying degrees.  I always go out of my way to get original.   The ONLY time I've ever made an exception is American Graffiti.  I hate the title card change, but it's a top ten film for me so I took what I could get.  Had there been digitally altered scenes, I would have passed.

I was never a fan enough to bother with owning it. I saw it in the theaters, twice I think, but it was cheese.  Flashy-as-hell cheese, but still cheese.  I considered buying it because of the recent nostalgia factor, plus I haven't seen it since the theatrical run, so I remember almost nothing.   However, looking just now at the prices of the DVD, I won't be.  I'm certainly not going to be shelling out for the Blu-ray, no matter which version.  Too many other films I'd rather have on Blu-ray and would watch regularly. 

Even as someone who saw it in the theaters in 1982, because I remember next to nothing, I expect most of the Easter eggs Dave mentioned will be lost on me.

TV's Frink said:

^Is that a deleted scene from The Matrix Reloaded?

;-)

She looked much better on mine;

;-)

Man, the Ducati product placement is so blatant that it's laughable.  I know it's the norm these days, but damn.  How about at least attempting to make it look like something other than a Ducati ad?

[/Triumph-rider rant]

For the non-riders on the board, that's a Sport 1000.  Dropped from production a couple of years ago.

Another minority I'm in.  ;-)

Yeah, I know there has to be updating and that the updating is in keeping with real-world updating. Just seems like the new one is a little polished for me.  And yes, I realize I'm in the minority.  Hell, I'm so small a minority -  I may be the only one.  ;-)

I agree about both versions of the original.  I've always felt that the weird colors and lighting fit the idea (at least for me in 1982) of how surreal the inside of a program would seem.  I'll see the new movie, but I can tell already that it's a little too shiny & perfect for me.  It seems awesome - as opposed to weird & creepy.

Very interesting, thanks for the post.

I think the interview very much reinforces my long-standing views of Lucas & Star Wars.  We got lucky in 1977 because Lucas had to defer to other people's thoughts and ideas regarding the final film (Marcia & Kurtz), even though he didn't want to.

As soon as he had the money and the power, he went about ruining the stories the way he originally wanted to ruin Star Wars (and eventually did in the late 90s).  His power-unchecked was the downfall of the franchise.

The opposite of that (his being 30% of a franchise) is exactly why the Indiana Jones franchise hasn't suffered.  He can't have final say, so his stupid ideas (formations of saucers chasing Indy across the desert, everyone he's ever known at his & Marion's wedding, etc) are squelched.  Probably has a lot to do with why the four films haven't been altered every few years.

Omnipotence - bad

30% partner - good

Of course, the downside to the partner deal was that it took 20 years for  Lucas to quit stomping his feet and holding his breath.  We could have had two more adventures during that time.  Bonehead.

Sluggo said:

I still haven't seen Avatar in theaters, bluray, DVD or storybook form.  Meh.

Make that two.  Not interested. 

Oh....goody.

Yeah, with the Astros for sale, I don't have to sweat the Phillies next year either. Won't make the few series we play them any easier to take though.  Hey, maybe we'll at least get to Roy O when he's here.  You know - sort of a mixed emotions\we get in his head sort of deal.  Drafted by the Astros - came up through our farm system - home field for 10 years - fans love him - etc.

Well, either that or he throws two shuts outs and a no-hitter against us in 2011.

;-)

Warb,  if the Phillies don't win the 2011 World Series - I'm going to assume the games were fixed.

To the rest of the baseball guys around here;  Is this the greatest rotation of all time?  And for the record, I seldom (if ever) use that term, but I'm going to have to ponder some of the rotations I've seen through the years and think if any were as loaded 1-4 as the Phillies are now.  Glavine, Maddux, Smoltz, Millwood comes to mind quickly - or Palmer, Cuellar, Dobson, McNally.

One more thought.  Hats off to Lee for leaving millions of dollars on the table to instead play where he wanted to.

TV's Frink said:

I'm fond of this explanation:

Sluggo said:

Or maybe this?

 

Make that two.

” For the first time in the history of filmmaking, computer generated imagery allowed the visual effects artist to focus on creativity—what’s possible—versus retrofitting story based on mechanical limitations. But is this necessarily a good thing? “Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.” .......the limitations that practical effects placed on filmmaking were a good thing because they forced story to be the lead actor with visual effects playing a supporting role. .......“Frankly, I feel like the new STAR WARS [films], to me, have too much stuff in [them]. I look at the screen and I go ‘I don’t know where to look......

“Who’s this story about? Why am I here?” The crucial difference with the new, all-digital STAR WARS films is that these questions don’t seem to have such resoundingly clear answers. “It became spectacle over story.

The very reasons I'm a fan of only Star Wars.  Lucas chose the wrong people when he re-made ILM.  He started ruining the franchise as soon as he finished the first film.

Very interesting article.