Anchorhead

doubleofive said:

I'm afraid of tearing them up since I have the originals that were my mom's. I'm too cheap to buy a new copy, but I suppose I could someday.

Man, you can get all three in one larger binding for just a few bucks.  That's what I did.  I have saving copies of Splinter & The Daley books, and also I have reading copies.  My reading copies get tossed into suitcases for long flights, sit in drawers, hit the floor when I fall asleep reading, etc.  They get pretty beat up. 

I bought this earlier this year as my new reading version;

and I just bought this reading version of Splinter this past weekend;

If you're buying online, remember that a Trade Paperback is a nicer, larger, and heavier paperback compared to the common Mass Market Paperback.  I get mass market paperbacks as reading copies because they're easier to handle.

canofhumdingers said:

Hey, Anchorhead, did you ever get around to reading the Brian Daley Han Solo books (looking at your avatar I'm guessing probably so)?  If so, I'd be interested in hearing what you thought.

I did.  I really dig them.  They're completely free of all the things that would later (for me) bog down Star Wars.  In fact, I just got into a lengthy discussion with Warbler about this very thing just a week or so ago.  I can't find it anywhere.  I looked all over the board, but the thread it was in has slipped my mind.

Anyway, I really enjoy the three novels' lack of attachment to the known Star Wars universe.  I'm about to start reading Splinter again (it's been a few years).  After that, if I don't take a break from science fiction, I might start the Brian Daley Han Solo novels again.

To me, the Han Solo Adventures are a much deeper look at the character, which is to be expected of course.  The atmosphere and the scenes are more fleshed-out.  Daley pays attention to detail and you get a great mental picture of what's happening and what the scene looks like. The characters are much more three-dimensional and realistic. Likewise, the dialogue is much deeper and much more adult.

The universe we were introduced to in 1977 was dark, mysterious, and vast.  Lucas couldn't come up with any story beyond 1977, so he ended up shrinking the universe, repeatedly.   Daley, on the other hand, explored its depth.

ChainsawAsh said:

Erikstormtrooper said:

I've read somewhere that the theatrical cut of Temple of Doom featured slightly more gore during the heart removal, and that this was later toned down a bit for home video release. So does that mean the theatrical version of temple of doom was never released on video?

(This may have been imdb crap I read though.)

I know that this scene was censored in the UK, but I don't think it's ever been toned down in the US, including home video.

That's how I remember it also - UK edited only.

 I saw Crusade several times in the theater and don't remember the word Jewish in that line. After I read the above post, I played that portion of my Crusade audio rip and there is a noticeable gap in that line, where Jewish would fit.

Interesting.

xhonzi said:

Anchorhead changed the thread title to:

RE: Article on prequel films. Note: Does not pertain to Godfather II, which isn't a prequel - it's a sequel with extended flashback sequences.

But.. Godfather II is specifically mentioned in the article to which you linked.

Correct. 

But I got too much push-back, so I altered the title.  Seems people couldn't get past that one film.

Asteroid-Man said:

Has anyone here read them? Apparently they're based on Lucas's original script and plot to which he intended to be the Star Wars saga.

Star Wars: From the Adventures of Luke Skywalker

Splinter of the Mind's Eye

 

I want to read them, but are they worth the read? They seem interesting...

Weird that you made this post today.  Just yesterday, I picked up a new copy of Splinter of the Mind's Eye because my original copy was getting a bit tattered.  I'll be reading it again in about a month.

I really like the story and the feel of the universe it takes place in.  That said;  I'm probably not the right guy to weigh in on this since I have such a small Star Wars universe. As Silver said, it's unfiltered, original Star Wars.  No sign of the shrinking universe, which was still a few years away.

I remember reading an interview with McQuarrie where he mentioned there being some rights issues with all the actors at that stage, so he wasn't able to show their faces in the cover artwork. If I can find that interview, I'll post it.

I have never read the original Star Wars novel.  That is a situation that needs to be corrected.  Because it's written by Foster, I'm sure I'll dig it.  Maybe I'll read it before I read Splinter again.  It will have to be a non "New Hope" cover, so Amazon will probably be how I go. I'd like either the McQuarrie cover or the Berkey cover.

ChainsawAsh said:

However, the 1973 cut should still be preserved for historical reasons.  The fact that the 1973 cut of American Graffiti and the 1971 cut of THX 1138 have never been released on home video in any format is even worse than Star Wars' situation.

I imagine the THX 1138 cause is much more lost than Star Wars.  However, considering some of the skill on this very board, getting a high quality 1973 theatrical version of American Graffiti is probably fairly easy.  Cut out the three 1978 scenes, edit back in the original title card, switch the sound to mono.  I don't know the quality of the title card shot from the documentary, but it may be the same as the film.

The three scenes cut in 73, then added back in 78 are;

Toad and the used car salesman - "Say, that's a really beautiful car you have there."

Steve telling off one of his former teachers - "Why don't you go kiss a duck."

Falfa singing Some Enchanted Evening.

ChainsawAsh said:

Wait - so even American Graffiti isn't the theatrical cut (CG opening shot aside)?!

The DVD version is the 1978 theatrical re-release which included four additional minutes that Lucas originally had in the 1973 version, but which were edited out by the studio for the original release in 1973.  I can't recall every scene off the top of my head, but one of them is Harrison Ford singing when he and Cindy Williams are driving around.

*edit*

Also, the 1978\DVD version is stereo.

ChainsawAsh said:

I don't think Crystal Skull was altered for the Blu-Ray.

I have it on Blu-ray and don't remember seeing anything altered.

Must have killed Lucas not to be able to somehow alter it.  A Lucasfilm release - completely untouched - released to the public in the current state-of-the-art format - and in its original theatrical form.  Imagine that, George -  letting people own the actual film they sat in the theaters watching.  It boggles the mind.

I wonder though, how much of that was Lucas and how much of it was Spielberg.  That said; both were on board with altering Raiders, so who knows?

The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles are also altered.

I know.  I as going to address that scene, but decided not to.  It's a wink to Raiders, but works on it's own just as well.

I never think of Temple as a prequel.  I suppose by definition it is considered one because it happens before Raiders.  However, it's completely unrelated and could take place just about anywhere on the time line.  It just happens to have 1935 after the titles.

In fact, that's one of the things I like about it.  It doesn't rely on the other films or characters. It's a stand-alone & complete adventure.

As far as good prequels are concerned - I think Godfather II is the gold standard. 

http://www.cracked.com/article_18813_5-reasons-hollywood-needs-to-stop-making-prequels_p1.html

I agree with their points, including this one in particular;

The Past Was Better Before We Saw It Happen

Must have been my hat.  ;-)

Yeah, it's not looking too good for the Rangers.

ChainsawAsh said:

kenkraly2007 said:

No I am not ok with it but to me it does'nt bother me all that much. And the reason I'm here cause I am a star wars fan.

I swear, it's like talking to a brick wall.  Except you're more stubborn.

He'll eventually go back to the official site.  He posts this same pro-Lucas  mess on the New York Times comments sections for Star Wars articles. 

TV's Frink said:

why isn't Feliz pitching the 8th?  Why is no one warming up in case of trouble?  Why aren't I the manager? ;-)

I swear, I thought they were going to make that same mistake tonight.    Rangers have to feel a little more like themselves now.

With God as my witness, the previous post is not me using an alias.  ;-)

Nanner Split said:

"It's not spaghetti, it's linguini"

"Now it's GARBAGE"

With God as my witness -  when Bingo said he was watching The Odd Couple, that was the very first thing that popped into my head.  Absolutely fantastic film and one of my very favorites.

TV's Frink said:

Sorry, thought you were calling my logic twisted.

Not even close, man.

*edit*

And speaking of not even close, what the hell is going on with the Rangers?!!  That was just plain ugly in the eighth.  Weird, man.

TV's Frink said:

How is this pretzel logic?

All of his rules for what's acceptable vs unacceptable behavior for sports franchises. Moving - not ok.  Hiring someone who tortures animals - ok - after they're traded a few years later.  Apparently torture is forgivable, but moving isn't. Even though the owner hiring the piece of ****still owns and runs the team - yet the Giants can't be forgiven - yet it's all a different team other than the name sewn on the jersey.  Ridiculous. 

Different team after 50 years - ok.  Different team in different city after 50 years - not ok.  By Warb's rules, the Yankees are to be hated forever because they aren't the Orioles anymore. Same for the Athletics, the Braves, the Nationals, and so on and so on.

Now, if you guys will excuse me, I have a game to watch.  Two sinful teams who changed cities several decades ago.

Sorry, man. I had to do it.

No more...

Warbler said:

are you really going to compare the kind of support the Marlins and Rays get to what the Giants and Dodgers got in New York and Brooklyn?  

I believe the discussion was teams changing cities.