I'm being ignored by him. Don't remember ever speaking with him or going into any discussions he started, so I won't be missing anything.
Warbler said:
Yankees, here we come.
In the words of Indiana Jones; "Be careful. You may get exactly what you wish for"
For the record: With the Astros way out of it (but very fun to watch now that the rebuild has taken place), I'm going to have to pull for the Rangers this post season. I've always been a mild fan and have a fair number of sets of Rangers cards, cap, memorabilia, etc. I've also driven to Arlington to see them play. In fact, I saw them play the Yankees this year. I've been following them closely this season. Their games are shown on TV here.
TheBoost said:
Is beleiving in what you don't see, and not belieiving in what you don't see REALLY equal leaps of faith?
Yes.
One side is saying "I'm certain there is nothing after this, but I can't prove it.
The other side is saying "I am certain there is something after this, but I can't prove it"
Boost - just so I'm absolutely clear on this - I'm not going to get into a long discussion about this because it's pointless. Your question is a textbook example of what I was mentioning earlier.
Arrogance - however subtle - on either side - is what keeps me from bothering to ever discuss beliefs. Both sides are replete with people who want to come across as being open to understanding, respecting, and discussing the other side's views - while making sure they still get in their points that prove they are the ones who are correct.
I don't do that - neither the drawn out discussions, nor the smugness. We all get the answer eventually - whatever it is.
TV's Frink said:
What, a three team league?
;-)
Well, at least that way I'll be able to tell my co-workers - "Yeah, I haven't fallen below third place all season in my fantasy league".
;-)
Ripplin said:
Juan Uribe...............
I just noticed he's available in our league...
That's because I cut him loose last month. Dug him at the start of the season and have seen him play twice this year in person. He's alright. He just started slumping and I needed to gain some ground. If we get a league going again next season, I'd take a chance on him again.
Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:
... everyone can cite something in their lives for which they are grateful they happened to be at the right age to participate. My cousin was at Woodstock...
Damn. Talk about an iconic moment to be part of! Man, that had to be a trip. Must be all sorts of stories attached to that adventure. I was too young to remember anything other than grown-ups talking about it.
sean wookie said:
Preach what you want to. Just don't get mad when people preach things differently then what you do.
That statement perfectly demonstrates why I almost never enter discussions of religion. My beliefs are my own. They're based on what I've read, seen, experienced, etc. However - they are personal, so I never preach, witness, scold, etc, etc. Other people's views are not my concern, nor should they be.
Because of that, I have little tolerance for athiests who constantly beat their chest over how smart they are - people like Bill Maher or George Carlin.
They're no different than the Christians they make fun of. Neither side appears to be terribly confident they've chosen the right path or they wouldn't need to constantly try to validate & confirm it.
For the record, I generally like Maher's show and find the format interesting. However, when he goes off on one of his religious bends, I turn it off. For him, there is only his view and everyone else's wrong one. Thinking that is fine, but he can't keep from being condescending about it.
Someone here said it best in another thread once - and I'm sorry I can't recall who because it was perfectly stated - both sides are taking an equal leap of faith because neither knows the truth. Unfortunately, that respect and tolerance seldom, if ever, comes through in religious conversations.
;-)
If it were a story that takes place decades after the 1977 story, with the original cast, addressing their autumn years - without Lucas writing or directing - I'd be interested. I'd prefer a story-driven film as opposed to an action\special effects film. Something cerebral. It would have to exist in that vast, dark 1977 universe - not the overcrowded solar system Lucas morphed it all into after Empire.
*edit*
If it had so much as a single reference to the prequels, I'd pass. It would have to be an adult-oriented, serious film, void of a connection to the software\merchandise advertisement that is the prequel series.
zombie84 said:
Anchorhead: ....thanks for the praise. I have to say, the feeling is mutual: reading your posts and interacting with you the last few years has given me an invaluable insight into the films that I doubt I would have otherwise. You are a rare breed of fan that most people my age don't get access to, and it sort of saddens me to think of the loss that people will have when they don't have first-hand access to people that have been around since 1977 but didn't keep up with the Lucasfilm machine.
Right back at you, man. I honestly believe it's the work of people like you and some of the members here who got us the 2006 DVD of the theatrical version - the only Star Wars DVD I own, or want to own.
I also think that same tenacity will eventually get us a proper release, although it will probably be many years from now. Lucas really digs his heels in when he's pushed, so it's not going to be easy. Until then, I'll help you guys fight the good fight by promoting your site, your book, and this site whenever I can.
I'm certainly grateful for having been around in 1977 and being part of the Summer Of Star Wars. I'm also glad I was old enough to really appreciate it and participate in it. It was a heady time indeed. I saw it every week, had the soundtrack, the poster that came with it, the one-sheet, the lobby cards, magazines, etc. I lived it.
That said: The truth is, it was all luck of the draw. We get here whenever we get here. So while I got to be part of the Star Wars phenomenon of 1977 - I'm also going to turn 50 before most of you. That can be a sobering thought.
As for being a fan of only one of the films and not following the Lucasfilm machine (great term for it, by the way), well - 1977 was a very tough act to follow.
Besides, you guys keep me young.
;-)
TheBoost said:
sean wookie said:
I think it would be a nice experiment and generally try to blend in as a recent Catholic convert. I'd confess my sins, converse with other Catholics, learn what they believe and why the believe it, and attend mass like everyone else, and any other Church events as long as it doesn't conflict with work. And blog about of all this.
As a recent convert, you won't confess. There's a rather rigorous training program for new Catholics, unless you're planning to bluff your way in as a fully confirmed Catholic. You also can attend mass, but not take communion.
Not that they check credentials at the door, but it depends on how dishonest you plan on being.
I'm with Boost on this one. If you're interested in learning about Christianity, with a lean toward Catholicism, just go talk to your neighborhood priest or read an article or book. There is also a Catholic forum.
You seem to be under the impression that this is some sort of secret society where your neighbors show their true selves once they give the secret password to get into a weekly gathering.
It's just church. It's people listening to thoughts on what they believe is our origin and future. A sort of mental re-grounding from the stresses of the week. You don't have to sneak in with a disguise and hope to bluff your way through without being caught.
Might also help you get a clearer understanding by doing a little reading on why there are several different churches of Christianity. People have been expressing differences of opinion on the Bible for a very long time. Look into why there are Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants (Baptist, Lutheran, Pentecostal, Presbyterian, Evangelical, et al), Jehovah's Witness, Latter Day Saints, and a few others.
none said:
doubleofive brings up in the '35 years of ILM' thread, another issue maybe worth having a page toward. The idea that articles, books, documentaries praise the advancements in technology the OT made, but then they show a picture from the SE. Having a page of these circumstances could be a convincing way to show how LFL is attempting to subvert the originals.
Not just attempting - succeeding. That CNET piece is a perfect example of it.
It will take diligence on our part and the work of people like Kaminski to get the truth revealed.
Reading one of your articles and came across this;
The Film Integrity Act of 1987 had attempted to amend the Copyright Act to provide moral rights to prevent unauthorized recolorization. It stated that the principle director and screenwriter, whom it defined as the authors, needed to consent to the process. Filmmakers from Jimmy Stuart to John Houston gave advisory testimony
Shouldn't that be Jimmy Stewart and John Huston?
Tobar said:
Great stuff. Ford is very much the way he would eventually portray Indiana Jones, particularly the classroom scenes ......
"...very grateful to be a part of it. That opening shot, well, I don't want to describe it for fear of ruining it for someone else"
"Local tradition held that there was a golden coffin buried at the site. This accounts for the holes dug all over and the poor condition of the find."
TV's Frink said:
ThiefCobbler4ever said:
And as far as The Phantom Menace goes, I enjoyed it like how I also enjoyed the Ice Age trilogy.
Yes, when you look at all the...
...wait, what?
*spit-take*
;-)
Warbler said:
George Carlin may be very funny, but I think he is also a jerk.
I thought he was funny back in the 70s and 80s, but as he got older he just got weirder and angrier. The last ten years or so, I had no interest in watching him. He wasn't about humorous observations or clever insight - he became toxic and unpleasant.
I don't have the time to get into a deep discussion about 007 with Warbler & Chainsaw, but I'll toss this out there for the record; I've been a 007 uber-nerd since 1973 - Live And Let Die, have all the films, most of the soundtracks, a few books, etc, etc.
Without a doubt, and in spite of the sentimentality of some of my favorites through the years - Casino Royale06 is my favorite James Bond film of all, by far.
With that, they finally made the 007 film I'd always wanted - no gadgets, no cringeworthy double entendre, no invisible cars, etc, etc. It's Bond being cool, edgy, tough, smart, and in a story that is grounded in reality - no secret lair inside a volcano from which the villain is plotting to take over the planet.I occasionally spend time here;
However, it's heavily moderated, with too many teacher's pets taking names for me to enjoy it. I mostly lurk to get information on upcoming films.
Here's another PDF for download.
Hoth-Nudist said:
Luca$...got lost and forgot what made SW so special.
From the years of reading behind-the-scenes stories & interviews with those who were part of the team, I've long since thought Lucas never really understood what made Star Wars so special to begin with.
From Huyck and Kurtz's rewriting some of the scenes - to Marcia telling him which scenes should stay and which should be edited, it seems as though he wasn't ever aware of what would make the film resonate with audiences, allow them to bond with the characters emotionally.
Kaminski's book has several examples of Marcia having to explain to George why certain scenes needed editing to allow more or less time, to give them the proper emotion, etc.
The same was true with American Graffiti. After the first screening for the studio it was apparent that thing was a hard-to-follow mess. It took Marcia to save it and make it the icon it is.
That's really my point with him being a great idea man, but not a great executor of those ideas - as is clearly evident from the prequels. At least the only one I've seen. I don't remember a great deal about Phantom, but I most certainly remember the story being incoherent and very poorly done.
The Indiana Jones series doesn't suffer from that because - whether he likes it or not - George is forced to be part of a team where he can be vetoed. He doesn't have to understand what makes the character and the stories special to people - Spielberg & Ford take care of that for him. Just as Marcia, Huyck and Kurtz took care of it for him with American Graffiti and Star Wars.
C3PX said:
Alien (am I the only one who liked Alien better than Aliens?)
I might as well just out myself now, since you guys are bound to find out sooner or later. In fact, I've been meaning to start a thread called I've Never Seen...
Alien is one of my favorite films of all time and has been since I first sat in the theater in 1979 - and I've never seen any of the sequels. Nor will I ever. I have zero interest in knowing what happened before or after. It was a complete story that didn't need expanding on. I learned my lesson with Star Wars.
And while I'm on the subject - the same goes for Planet Of The Apes, Jaws, and Back To The Future.
Now, regarding my list. This is just off the top of my head;
Apollo 13
Blade Runner
Alien
Jaws
The Conversation
American Graffiti
2001 A Space Odyssey
Patton
Indiana Jones (all)
Star Trek (2009)
Serpico
Dances With Wolves
Casino Royale (2006)
Sideways
Batman Begins
A Good Year
Sent a few moments ago;
Regarding this story;
http://news.cnet.com/2300-11386_3-10004866.html
The second picture is not from the original 1977 film. It's from the 2004 CGI-altered version.
I hope to see it mentioned on their corrections page.
Hoth-Nudist said:
He had PLENTY of time to come up with something, anything, better than what we got.
Ultimately though, isn't that really telling of who he is as a creator? Which, in my opinion, is not a talented one. He had decades to come up with new stories that could have existed within the Star Wars universe, but he couldn't do it. Instead, he stayed married to that same film from 1977 and tried to expand it into five more movies. He just isn't a great writer. After Star Wars became a phenomenon, he decided to make a sequel. So, he hired two people to write sequels - Brackett and Foster. He had no ideas left. Too bad he didn't use either of them. It might have kept him from shrinking the universe into a bed time story. To me, Brackett's original story was much more in keeping with the mystery and far away feel of Star Wars.
As I've said before on this board and on an Indy board; He's a great idea man, but he really struggles to flesh them out. American Graffiti, Star Wars, & Raiders Of The Lost Ark are fantastic films, all from his ideas. They're three of my favorite movies. However, he had to have help in all three to get them right. Without Marcia, Kurtz, Spielberg, & Ford (and many others) - his films most likely wouldn't have been as successful. Reading interviews from years past, some of them were close to not being released at all had other people not come to his rescue - Marcia with American Graffiti.
If you guys have read any of his early drafts for Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull, it's as ridiculous & out of place in the Indy world as the prequels are in the Star Wars world.
A squadron of flying saucers chasing Indy across the desert while firing lasers at him?!!.........
Thank God he's only a third of the Indiana Jones team. I honestly believe that's why the Indiana Jones franchise is consistent in tone and quality throughout - there are checks & balances (Spielberg & Ford) that don't exist in the Star Wars franchise, at least not after 1980. Which is exactly the time that franchise went to shit.
My point with all this blathering is that it doesn't matter how much time he has. If George is the sole voice of a story, it's likely to be a bad one.
I saw Phantom in the theater in 1999. I remember almost nothing about it. That is my sole involvement with anything Star Wars post-1983
I don't hate the prequels because I have no emotional involvement with any part of them. I've only seen Phantom once and from what little I actually remember, it was bad on every level.
Story - Weak, cobbled together, and directionless.
Acting - Elementary school terrible.
Visually - Too much going on at once, too distracting from the already poorly-written story.
Characters - No emotional connection what so ever. Several were nothing more than marketing tie-ins for toys and Halloween costumes, while the rest were just cartoons aimed at children.
I never bothered with the last two films, so I have no thoughts one way or the other.