Anchorhead

see you auntie said:

And since you brought up Blade Runner being one of your favorites I'm also curious to know which version that is and if you've seen the other cuts?

The director's cut from the 90s is my go-to these days.  It's a fine version of the film.  I'm glad it's minus the voice-over and the footage from The Shining because they seemed out of place from the start.  The unknown, dark ending is perfect for me.  That said;  like Star Wars and Alien, I saw the thing weekly during it's theatrical release, so I'm ok with that version too (although I don't own it).

Regarding other versions; I saw what may have been the work print in a ratty old theater in L.A. back around 1990 or so.  It was a short run and there was some nerd buzz surrounding it, but truthfully, I'm, not sure which version it was.

I do not own the multi-version - uber-release because the Director's Cut is fine for me.  Blade Runner falls into a weird niche for me because it's a movie I've seen probably 100 times and has had viewing restrictions since its release - ONLY on rainy, cold nights.  Period.

I'm not a fan of multiple versions of something I love, particularly when they're offered up decades after the original version has become so engrained in my world.

I guess in answer to your question, I haven't seen, nor do I own, the other versions of Blade Runner because I don't need them for the mental escape. 

Blade Runner was one of the very first (if not the first) films I made an audio rip of.  If I've seen it 100 times, I've listened to at least that many.

*edit*

I've only ever seen, and own, the theatrical version of Alien.  That's also the version I regularly listen to my audio rip of.

LexX said:
I'd just recommend to watch the whole trilogy even once. :)

We've never met, have we?

;-)

The far far away adventure I went on every week in 1977 - that was all him.

Damn.

negative1 said:

 how do you know if something is good.

if you never watch them in their entirety(sequels)? paradox?

Having seen about 30 minutes total of Back To The Future II and finding it terrible, I decided to err on the side of caution and not bother watching either sequel.

Two things, if I may.

One...

Leonardo said:

Post of the week.  ;-)

Two...

georgec said:

George continues to sell people the same garbage, and despite their reservations they gladly pay for it.

That is behavior that I simply cannot grasp.  I'm truly fascinated by the number of people who make themselves like a sequel based solely on how they feel about the original in a series or previous work by a director they admire.  It's a behavior that I don't think even a psychologist could help me make sense of.  Yet I see it regularly on TFN and Blu-ray. 

I mentioned before that Back To The Future is one of my most beloved and watched films, coming it at well over 100 times and counting.  Yet - I think the second one is shit (I've seen several scenes from it), and I didn't bother with the third (or the second proper for that matter). 

My love of the first film is completely separate from the sequels.  Sequels, by the way, made by a director who has given me a lifetime of very cherished and favorite films. He doesn't get a pass just because I feel some sense of duty or allegiance.  Make a good film, I'll see it and support it.  Make a shit film, and I'll pass. No exceptions.

I've mentioned this before, but since we have a few new members checking in lately I figured it was worth a refresh.  I read this regularly.

http://dailysw.blogspot.com/

An off-the-beaten-path EU that really shows how innocent the franchise was in the late 70s.  No doubt about it, before Lucas started shrinking everything, the universe was endless and the story wide open with possibilities.

Bingowings said:

I know I'm going to get it in the neck for this but I actually prefer the 2002 version.

Me too.  The original is ok, but having nothing happen for fifteen minutes at a time is, to me, taking an idea too far. 

CatBus said:

The Star Wars juggernaut no longer has the capacity to recognize failure.........for the next several years, and afterwards, the usual suspects will deem it to be a success by measuring against whatever goalposts they manage to have constructed by then.

That's really it in a nutshell.  In this day and age, no one's team ever loses.  It's no different than the President speaking to a room full of Democrats and  Newt speaking to a room full of Republicans.  Both groups will claim victory because both groups hear only what they want to hear.

I haven't read any reviews for this, but I suspect the arguments are something along the lines of;

Non-fans - "Man, seventh place?  That  shows how bad it is."

Fans - "Man, 25 million in a week?  That shows how good it is."

In the end, this will do exactly what Lucas wants.  It will generate tons of return on investment - and it will once again get the prequels in the news, keeping them relevant.

A tip of the cap, George.  You're a fucking genius.

Even as a moderator on a Star Wars board, I'm not going to read a single line of an article with that as a title.

Lucas: 
It had been done in all close-ups and it was confusing about who did what to whom.

Honestly, I can't help but  laugh (literally).  The thread title is correct. He knows it's bullshit, and he knows we know it's bullshit.

The designing and selling of a Han Shot First T-shirt is a textbook example of a guy who knows full well what he's doing... "I'll fuck my fan base - then sell them a t-shirt with a cartoon on it pointing out that I fucked them."

At this point, who can blame the guy?  With  TFN and Blu-ray.com as a fan base, he has guaranteed revenue stream.  Why in the world would he cater to anyone else?

His peers want him to do the right thing, but they only represent about 20 DVDs.  The TFNers and BR.com sheep represent hundreds of thousands.  Who would say no to that?

That said, there is one silver lining.  We were present for yet another reason for not being allowed to have the 1977 version.

Original was damaged.
1970s technology.
Limited budget.
Original Vision.
Confusing close-ups.

Lucas is a fucking genius.  No other fan base would even consider allowing a director\owner to abuse them emotionally at this level.  Yet when I peruse the TFN and Blu-ray forums, they seem almost to crave it.  Hilarious.

I grew up in the late 60s\early 70s - in Houston - where Gemini, Apollo. and Skylab were everything.  I went to Ed White elementary school, for Christ's sake.  Tonight I'll take a moment to reflect on, and deeply appreciate, Mr. Lowry's work in insuring future generations get to experience the wonder of the Apollo program the way I did.  It was truly a magical time.

RIP sir, and thank you.

Let me guess - the original was "damaged"?  1999 technology held you back? You're only shooting what was your original idea, even though your buddies don't remember you ever mentioning anything besides the one film?

Spare us, dude.  We've heard it all before.  Start getting your pretzel logic ready.....

That's not the response we were looking for.

Mr. Peterson, an honor indeed. Thanks for taking the time.  It goes without saying that you're responsible for a great many images that have moved the members of this board for decades.  I'd be remiss if I didn't offer a personal thank you myself. 

I've never made any secret of the fact that as a fifteen year old boy sitting in the theater in 1977, this scene moved me the most. 

I loved the adventure alright, but with this single scene I actually felt far far away. I looked forward to it every week and loved it every time. Still my single favorite scene of the film. If I have my Star Wars history correct, this is your work.

Again, thank you sir.

walking_carpet said:

 well...if we are to take lucas' comments literally, he said people are yelling at him. nothing about making mean posts on the internet

so which one of you guys have been going over to san rafeal, standing outside his house and yelling at him?

Man, I don't want to be the one to point out the obvious here, but.........

;-)

Oh, come on!  No room for levity in this charged climate?  Yeah, that's right -  I went Indiana Jones.

Frink - I'm asking politely.  The thread's volatile enough already.

;-)

AWN article; "Because of the Northridge quake, a lot of the original footage was water damaged. That’s why we knew when we went in that we were going to have to do some extensive restoration work....George went through with the editor, picked a bunch of stuff and re-edited it slightly, just to make it more what he wanted. He realized that there were scenes he wanted to expand upon… at the time with the budget that he had,"

Honestly.   Lucas' continued use of  - the originals were damaged, I mean it was the limited budget, I mean it was my Original Vision.  Good God, man - pick one lie and stick to it.  It's the same set of pat answers he trots out for repressing the original version of Star Wars. 

All kidding aside, the man needs an intervention - or he needs to be institutionalized. Anymore these days, he seems to have fluid stories for every project he's involved in.  He's already started it with the Red Tails promotional junkets - it was the studios trying to suppress history\me\my project - it was the critics, I mean the fans. The guy is a pathological liar.

Finished and updated Allegiance.

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/What-do-you-LIKE-about-the-EU/post/560011/#TopicPost560011

No spoilers

As you guys know, I don't have hard & fast thoughts on remakes.  They can be much better than the original (True Grit) or they can be much worse (Planet Of The Apes - 2001). Before I post my thoughts on Arthur, I should preface them with a few points.

One; I enjoyed the original Arthur and saw it a few times in the theater.  Mostly because I really dug Liza Minnelli in it.  The film had its funny scenes alright, but in the early 80s you just about couldn't get away from Dudley Moore (10 and Arthur). After a while, I grew tired of him.  These days I've softened on that and find his films ok.

Two;  For absolutely no reason what so ever, I've always assumed I wouldn't like Russell Brand in anything.  I'd seen him in one interview - Conan or Leno? - and he seemed pleasant enough.  Why I've never sought out any work of his is a mystery.  I just wasn't interested.

Arthur has been on cable for a few weeks and when my wife asked me if I wanted to watch it with her, I politely declined. Again, no real reason.  I'm not enamored with the original and I wasn't familiar with Brand.  If anything, my thoughts were along the lines of - I haven't seen the original in about 25 years, nor I don't care to see a remake of it.

She loved it and watched it a few times the past couple of weeks.  I could hear it in the other room, but never went in to look.  This past Saturday night we decided to stay in.  I went to get take-out and my wife again mentioned Arthur since it would be starting just after I got back.

I decided to give it a watch.  I loved it!  Brand is as fine a drunken millionaire as Moore was and every bit as believable in the more serious scenes.  The film closely follows the original story, but with some tweaks here and there.  To be sure, neither film is a bastion of depth and believability, so when the film was a touch silly, I could think of equally silly scenes in the '81 version.

It has a few characters who are over the top characitures (Nick Nolte and Jennifer Garner), but since it's a silly comedy film, I'm fine with it. Plus neither is in the film too much.  Helen Mirren just about steals the film.  Well written, well played, needed depth, and she's still fantastic looking.  Gerwig's character (the Minelli role) is the biggest change.  She has a larger role, is more realistic, and has a more serious tone in general.

The film becomes more grounded as it goes on and deals with serious issues differently than the first.  Our culture is more sensitive to alcoholism these days and the film addresses that without losing it's comedic edge.  The original ignored the seriousness and went with straight comedy. I also caught a subtle nod or two to the original, and one to the original director.

The film is heavier near the end, but still humorous. Since that initial viewing last Saturday night, I've watched it three more times.  I have the DVD on order, as well as the soundtrack, which I think is really fantastic. No doubt, I'll be making an audio rip of the film for long trips.

This is one where I strongly disagree with the critical reception, which was poor.  I give it 5 out of 5 bowls of spaghetti circles.

Bingowings said:

I try to keep really good films as a rare treat so as to not spoil them.

That's been my practice as well for about 30 years.  It does keep them very special.  Blade Runner only on cold rainy nights, Alien only at night, The Conversation only during December, Jaws on the 4th of July, etc, etc.

My wife always goofs on my rules, but it makes the films always very special and always a continuation of the original discovery.

I've been toying with this as a topic for a while.  Do you have any one film you've seen way more than others, or are there a few? I've been going over and over in my head about which ones.  I have to call it somewhat of a draw. My most viewed list is probably 100 times or more each. 

If I had to come up with one, it would probably be Jaws.  Weekly in the theater on it's original release, at least weekly in the theater on it's 1979 re-release, and countless regular viewings through the decades.  Honestly, impossible to quantify.

Close runners-up, in no particular order;

Raiders Of The Lost Ark
Blade Runner
Alien - also my first ever home video of a film (VHS).
Star Wars
Planet Of The Apes
Logan's Run
Back To The Future
Night Shift
Apocalypse Now

The list is longer than I thought it would be, but I'm crowding 50. I've been in the game a while.  It adds up.

There are a few more that are very heavily viewed, but not at the same level as the list above.

This topic is a perfect example of why this board is unique among movie boards and why we should be taken very seriously as film historians\aficionados\groupies\nerds\whatever you want to call us.

Member one - "Hey - anyone remember this old TV special from 30 years ago?...it had the cast from Star Wars...I saw a screencap one time...it's not even listed on IMDB"

Member two - "Yeah, man.  I digitized a copy.  Here's a link"

I didn't comment on his bovine remark because it wasn't worth discussing.  It was just a remark by a reviewer who seems to have a chip on his shoulder, so he decided to be a dick about the actress.   There are a myriad of film franchises I have zero interest in, but I can do better than calling the leading lady a bovine.  Particularly when she isn't.

John Simon said:

 

Worst of all is Carrie Fisher, whose Leia is a cosmic Shirley Temple but without the slightest acting ability or vestige prettiness."

I disagree with that statement.  Fisher carried her own in the films.  No small feat considering that Leia isn't the deepest of characters to start with. 

Regarding her vestige prettiness;  She was gorgeous in the late 70s (prettiness as adjective) and in Empire they softened the character somewhat, which also added to her prettiness (adverb). He needs to look up the definition of vestige and save it for discussions where it would apply.

[/posting before morning coffee]

Allegiance, by Timothy Zahn.

Just started it two nights ago, but absolutely loving it.  It seems to be taking place just after Star Wars, so it very much has a 1977 feel.  Han is who he was in Star Wars and Luke is still somewhat of a thorn in his side.  Han and Chewie feel like they did in the Daley novels.  They still see themselves as smugglers with a ship for hire, even if they are struggling a bit with being respectable and having unofficially chosen a side.  I'm really enjoying reconnecting with a few friends from 35 years ago.

Updates as they occur.

*update*

The story takes place six months after Star Wars.  So far it's three stories. One is our heroes dealing with their differing personalities and whether or not to even stay together as a team. Second is a group of stormtroopers who get themselves into very serious trouble. Third is Mara Jade in her early years serving the Empire. 

One scene - not a spoiler -  Mara runs into Vader while they are both in the Emperor's personal library doing some research.  She's sitting at a computer near him and tries to make small talk.  He dismisses her and goes about his research.  

She thinks to herself about how the few times she's ever been around him, he's always been unpleasant - for no reason in particular.   It's a short meeting, lasts no more than a page or so, and has nothing to do with the story.  However, I really like how it gives the people and the story some depth. Zahn is a master at fully realizing  characters that way.  It was so well written that I could see it as though I were watching it on a screen.

===============================================

**Completed.  Review.  Possible spoilers, which I'll mark.

As Zahn has said before, Allegience is about "three different people and groups with allegiance issues".  For me, the best part of the novel is the story of the stormtroopers.  That story is so interesting and so well-written that I'm sorry it wasn't a full novel on it's own.  Fortunately though, it's a huge portion of this one. 

Very interesting idea to have a group of stormtroopers be the center of a story where you see what's under the armor, see them as people with internal conflicts.  Well done from start to finish.  I'd put their story up against anything Zahn has done.  Yeah, that's what I said.

The second storyline deals with our heroes a few months after Star Wars.  I thought this one was handled very well also.  It was nice to be around the characters the way they originally were.  As I mentioned earlier, Han and Chewie feel very Daley-esque, which I'm a huge fan of.  Leia is her original feisty self and Luke is still a gung-ho kid.  It's what I wish we have been given as the sequel to Star Wars.  Good stuff.

The third storyline is Mara in her very early years with the Empire.  She's a tough 18-year-old on a mission.  I've never made an secret of the fact that I think she's the strongest part of the Thrawn Trilogy and the Hand Of Thrawn duology. In those five novels, she and Luke are fantastically handled.  They became my canon for that very reason. In Allegience, I didn't find her nearly as interesting. 

*Spoiler*

I didn't find her interesting because everything about her is just a little too perfect. Physical ability, mental ability, combat ability, force-use ability, etc.  She passes through the story flawlessly.  It was her flaws and mistakes in the Thrawn novels that made her so interesting, particularly the Hand duology. 

In this novel she's almost Catwoman-like in her skin tight jumpsuit and acrobatic combat style. I would have found her much more interesting if she had failed occasionally or struggled a bit.  Her years with Karrde in the earlier novels (later in her life) made for a much deeper character. 

However, at eighteen years of age,  life hasn't usually taught people any hard lessons yet.  They tend to be naive, cocky and overly confident.  So in that regard, she's written correctly.  Her naivete' is pointed out and discussed by other characters during the course of the story and that part was refreshing. She has flaws, she just doesn't know it.  Yet.

*End Spoiler*

Overall, I enjoyed this novel a great deal.

I'll start reading Choices Of One tonight.