Anchorhead

I was very slow to jump on board, regularly spouting the purity of the actual book.  I'm still a huge fan of actual books and will always prefer them - period.

That said;  I got a tablet several months ago - not for reading, but for accessing the internet while traveling (great for dinner reservations, theater tickets, and online boarding passes).  It had the Kindle app on it, so I gave it a test drive. 

As an avid reader every night, after the Fam is tucked in and sawing logs, I thought it might be less intrusive than my book light.  I have to say, it took a night or two to adjust, but I read for hours now before putting it away and going to sleep.  No exaggeration, I read for maybe two or three hours every night - more than before.  In fact, the last six books I read were all Kindle versions (three Star Wars, one fiction, and two non-fiction).  Just started Allegiance two nights ago and I'm absolutely loving it (updates in the EU thread soon).

Still prefer an actual book, but very much a fan of Kindle.  In the end, it's the story that's most important, not the medium.  If I wake up in the middle of the night and can't fall asleep, I just grab it off the night stand and read some more.  No more getting up and causing the dogs to stir, which thereby wakes my wife.  I just quietly continue reading - and with much less light in the room.

Eric_S said:

"You know of the rebellion against the Empire?!"

Tattooine is REALLY far out of the way in a really big galaxy.  Luke is a clueless teenager.  I would be more surprised if he actually knew who Anakin Skywalker was in the first place. 

That's yet another indicator of how Lucas' inability to write created a giant plot hole that he was never able to SE his way out of. 

In Star Wars, Luke's father is mentioned briefly, early in the film, as a story point to establish Luke as an orphaned kid living out in the middle of nowhere.  Ben knew his father, had his old war weapon, and gave it to Luke.

Same for Leia.  Her father is mentioned briefly as a plot device to get Ben involved, then the story moves on.  The problem - and to me it's gargantuan - is when Lucas couldn't come up with a sequel, as well as rejecting the two that he asked two other authors to write.

He decided instead to rewrite the first story.  Luke's father and Leia's father - two separate characters unrelated to Vader - should have never been brought back into the story, whatever direction it went in. 

However, not only did Lucas bring back Luke's father as a story element, he changed him to someone who was already in the first film. He then  muddied the story even further when he later tied him back into the Leia arc by making him her father too (more writer's block). 

He took three established & different characters and changed them all into the same guy. Once the fans accepted that pretzel logic, he took the ball and ran with it. If you can get your audience to accept an on-the-fly rewrite that ridiculous, they'll accept anything. 

Ultimately, he made Luke's father the primary character in five of the six films. Yet, as this discussion shows, it still makes no sense when you try to align it with the original story.

It's poor writing that no amount of discussion, SEs, or revisionist history interviews will ever be able to correct.

nightstalkerpoet said:

The fact that the original sounded like.....a dramatic piece of the soundtrack doesn't help. .....the common viewer didn't even realize the intention of it.

THAT - is exactly where I was in 1977.  I didn't know until many many years later (not even sure when) that it wasn't part of the score.  All the bullshit over versions is lost on me, even now, because to me they ran away because Ben surprised and scared them.

If I may;  When Alien was released, I became an instant fan.  A huge nerd, in fact.  I went to see it weekly, as I had Star Wars a couple of years earlier.  I bought a book that told the story in screencaps, wore out the soundtrack (one of only two pieces of vinyl I still have). I still listen regularly to the CD conversion of that very album, pops and all. I also keep a full audio rip of the film in my car and on my iPod for long trips and commutes.  I would estimate that I listen to that audio rip 5 or 6 times a year. Like I said, lifetime Alien nerd.

When the sequel was announced several years later, I was uninterested.  Alien was a complete story and I had no desire to see it being expanded into a franchise.  To this day, I've not seen any of the sequels, nor will I ever.

Fast forward to now.  I've been keeping up with Prometheus peripherally. The more I see, the more I know I'll be there opening week.  I love the idea of having completely unrelated stories taking place in the same location, separated by many years.  I may not dig it, but at this point I'm looking forward to it.  Scott has made two of my all-time favorites (Alien and Blade Runner), and a couple of others that I enjoy.  I feel like the story is in good hands.

Plus - after 33 years - it will be interesting to see this guy...

again...

Side note; I've been meaning to start a thread about an aspect of long-time favorite films.  Alien figures prominently in my topic of discussion.  I'll get to work on it this weekend.

From 1974 to 1980 Vader wasn't Luke's father.  Changing the story a few years after the first film was released created the plot hole you're struggling with.

Alexrd said:

Lets take a look at an actual screenshot:

Yes, let's do that.

Poorly shaped puppet not withstanding, to me the CGI version still looks like what it is - a drawing.  The shadows aren't consistent with the puppet or the world it existed in, the texture is softened, and the depth has been erased. The cartoon version looks flat.

For the record, I know I'm trying to make my point to an apologist.  I get that.   I don't even remember the puppet looking so bad when I was in the theater - I was fairly disengaged at that point anyway.

Frink summed it up perfectly.  Had they paid more attention to the Empire puppet and duplicated it correctly, this would be a non issue.

Look who is in town today:

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/entertainment&id=8491931

They're at a private screening tonight at the only theater I've been to in probably 14 years or so.   It's a very nice theater.  I see everything there. If they post the broadcast from tonight on their site, I'll link to it.  Sounds like they're going to let George revise tell the story behind making the film.

Alexrd said:

walking_carpet said:

 the idea behind cgi was not just animation but photorealism...

 

And isn't that what happened?

No.

The cartoon version looks exactly like what it is - a drawing of something that existed in the physical world. The texture is wrong, the lighting is wrong, and the depth of field is wrong.

ray_afraid said:
Anyone who thinks Yodas clothes looked anywhere near realistic in the PT needs to stop playing so many video games and go out and see what things look like in the real world.

THIS!

Honestly, I believe we are looking at a generation who can't fully understand real.  They've spent so long virtually experiencing life, that they don't seem to have an understanding of what real actually looks like or how it behaves (gravity, mass, light, shadow, movement, texture, etc).

[vent]
That may explain how all the idiots on Break and YouTube think you can jump from the roof of your house onto a card table and not break your spine.  Strange, the lead character in the video game the day before just bounced,  did a back flip, and came up shooting.  He didn't need eight months of physical therapy just to relearn how to tie his shoes.  Weird.
[/vent]

Ziggy Stardust said:

Taxi Driver.............Seeing all these ordinary people who obviously weren't extras walking down the street wearing these old clothes really give the film a really retro feel, and upon the first few minutes of initial viewing, you can tell what decade this was filmed in.

I don't nit-pick you guys too often, but if I may;  Taxi Driver was filmed in 1975, released in 1976.  It's not retro - it's original.  The Indiana Jones films, Super 8, Catch Me If You Can, Apollo 13, etc - those have a retro feel.

[off-topic]
I work with a girl who always comments about how our house has a cool retro feel.  Our house is a Mid-Century Modern, built in the late 1950s.  While we have made some updates to the electrical, plumbing, appliances, doors, windows, tile, etc - we have been very careful to stay true to the style of the 50s and use specialty companies (fixtures and doors) or custom builders (cabinets and tile). 

We do a great deal of research and Photoshopping before we add or replace something.  Our house doesn't feel like a house from the 50s - it is a house from the 50s.
[/off-topic]

I spent the past few days in New York.  Rang in the new year in Times Square.   I suppose it's something everyone should think about experiencing once.  Having lived there many years ago, it's something I'd done before on a few occasions.  Insanity.  Always exciting though. 

We were in a restaurant just off 7th and out of the main mass.  It's a personal police escort these days, for a couple of blocks, right to the door of the restaurant -  complete with ID, dinner reservation proof, and a pat-down for weapons. The restaurant was busy, but the street outside (45th) was deserted because all but Times Square is closed off to all traffic - pedestrian and auto - from 6th to 9th, 40th to 59th.  At midnight we stepped outside to the empty street in front of the restaurant and toasted another trip around the Sun.

We made a quick exit and by the time we were back to our hotel on 45th and 5th, the confetti was coming down like snow, carried by the wind.  The sound was drunken festive and the well wishes were flowing from every shop owner and scattering of people as we walked by.  It was nice.

2012 is off to a great start.

This was the second movie I went to see this past weekend. I suppose it was about what I expected. Which is to say, a gritty (at times unnecessarily so) mystery.  Daniel Craig makes the film, for me.  The girl is fine enough as a character and I suppose brilliantly played by Rooney Mara.

Problem one for me is that a girl like that would be a huge drag to be around.  I don't dig that sort of coarse, angry, filthy female, so I felt no emotional connection to her.  Like many of the people around her in the story, I found her off-putting to say the least. 

That said;  Her past is such that that's about all that could become of someone that emotionally and physically abused.  In that regard, they presented the character perfectly.

Daniel Craig was fantastic at playing someone completely different from Bond and I never once thought of Bond.  Dude is versatile.

It's long (2hrs, 40 mins) and at times it felt like it.  Not so much that I was looking at my watch, but there were some passages that seemed to take a little too long.

Problem two for me;

Spoiler - or warning;

I'm not terribly impressed with the trend lately to show scenes that are intensely graphic and disturbing, solely for the purpose of being able to say the film is extremely realistic.

There is a rape scene that, to me, seemed unnecessarily realistic and long.  I don't need to see three minutes of a graphic depiction of rape to understand how horrible and emotionally disturbing a crime that is.  Nor do I particularly want to sit in a theater and be presented with scenes that I want to look away from (and I did for a bit).
[/venting]

Based on the muted grey cinematography, Daniel Craig's fantastic performance, and a good dose of wealthy family with a dark past mystery,  I give it 3 out of 5 framed flowers.

I have to say I was a little disappointed.  Top notch production all the way around, vintage Spielberg for sure.  My disappointment is how the story itself is handled. It didn't leave any time for, nor seem to present a need for, the audience to become emotionally involved with any of the characters.  Not even Joey (the horse).

To me, all the scenes with Joey were the best parts of the movie.  The people all seemed one-dimensional.  The story spans four years, but it feels like it could have been six months.  At times, some very important parts of the story were glossed over in a matter of a minute or so.

I wanted more time with some of the people and with Joey, but it jumped through the years and the different people in Joey's life very quickly.  I felt zero connection to any character other than Joey. I don't really know how to explain it, but I felt like the story was poorly presented. I expected much more.

However; With the the horse's part of the story and the cinematography both being handled so expertly - I give it 3 out of 5 stars.

msycamore said:

I don't believe these kind of things is done to give fans the middle finger, just take a look at what was done to the trilogy in '97...

No doubt some of those alterations were nothing more than terrible decisions and a clear lack of understanding what made the films special to people over the years.  And I agree that he's been profit-first, art-second since about 1980.

However, The NOOO in the 6th film has been ridiculed so thoroughly, that I honestly believe adding it to the Original Trilogy was a finger to the fans who made fun of it. 

Just as I think his designing & selling the T-shirts that say Han Shot First were also a big "fuck you" to anyone who dared question his altering of the cantina scene - the very scene that established Han as a character.

EyeShotFirst said:

If only women knew just how self conscious men are.

If only women knew how unnecessary their self-consciousness actually is.

EyeShotFirst said:

...further proves that George Lucas wants to screw with us. It's almost like he's cramming in shit, because he knows it will rattle our cage, and the fanboys will lap it up like a kitten on a tit.

I'm not usually a conspiracy type of guy, but that's been my thought on the more ridiculous changes for a while now.  Lucas has been a control freak with a colossal ego for years. 

The moment someone says he shouldn't do something - whether it be peers or fans - he makes it a priority to do it.  The NOOOOOO, the new dragon call, etc -  the more the fan base gets upset, the more he shows them who's boss.  At this point in the history of the franchise, to me, it's the only logical explanation.

Regarding the calls;  I've only heard the original.  It works just fine for me.

I haven't looked at that site in several years (it gets a mention on motorcycle boards from time to time).  Back then he only had two or three jackets and it seems like they were all Batman-related. He has really grown since then. 

I would never wear something that over-the-top to ride in, but hats off to the guy's attention to detail. That Captain America jacket he's working on looks interesting.

The Tin Machine Within

TV's Frink said:

 I'd much rather discuss the politics of dancing.

Now it was my turn to look something up.   When I did, I discovered something very strange.  For a couple of months now, Wikipedia has been running a banner with different messages from some of their authors. They rotate every few days.  Yeah, I know - but wait, it gets even weirder.

When I pulled up the Politics Of Dancing article, I noticed a very strange similarity between the featured author in the banner and the album cover for Politics.  It looks like the same guy.  Man, they're even wearing the same shirt.

Coincidence?.......Well, yeah.  But it is kind of weird.

Pro-choice as well.  My feelings about the fetus candy are common decency-driven, not belief-driven.

For the record, I'm a Mackerel Snapper, so I have thoughts on the subject.  However, they didn't enter into my views of the fetus, and they are beyond the scope of this thread.

The more I thought about it on the way home, the more offensive I found it (there wasn't much more to go anyway).  Like I said, never was a fan, so - as of about 3 minutes ago;

Thank you guys for bringing this to my attention.

This, on the other hand, is a message I can get behind.  ;-)

Peeps = sugary wonderfulness.

I've heard a fair amount of Flaming Lips music over the years because one of the guys I ride with is a big fan.  Short of one song, I've always found their work to be weak.  They're a popular underground\fringe band.  To me, there's a reason for that. 

Part of their allure - and certainly why my friend likes them so much - is the fact that they are unconventional. Only the cool people get them.  Their music, to me, doesn't live up to the cult following.  They augment their image with gimmicks - headphone concerts, cassette player shows, boombox\parking lot deal, etc.  This gummy fetus with a flash drive embedded is just the latest.

Personally, I find the fetus stunt to be in extremely poor taste.  Some things should be sacred. They should be used (if they must be used as advertisement at all) to send a  plea for help and compassion - not a band's advertising of their latest pop music offerings. 

I feel that having an edible, fetus-shaped candy as a vehicle to deliver your latest songs reeks of a "hey, look how weird I am" attention grab.  They can say it's all about love and birth all they want, but there is no way in the world they overlooked the fact that it has a weird abortion look and feel to it.  Probably the single most polarizing behavior in the human experience.

They'll get their next 15 minutes of underground cool factor for sure.  I disagree strongly with how they're going about it.  However;  Like I said before, to me their music has never been strong enough to carry them, so behavior like this is how they've made up for it. 

TV's Frink said:

Easy...buy her Season 2 of the Gilmore Girls

Good choice.  Oh, and by the way - if she doesn't like it, PM me.  I'll take it off your hands.

*swoon*

;-)