Sign In

ChainsawAsh

User Group
Trusted Members
Join date
31-Jul-2004
Last activity
19-Jun-2018
Posts
7106

Post History

Post
#326529
Topic
STAR WARS: EP IV 2004 <strong>REVISITED</strong> ADYWAN *<em>720p HD VERSION NOW IN PRODUCTION</em>
Time

The "Purist" edition, IIRC:

- Removes any music not originally in the film
- Restores Threepio's line at the beginning from "There'll be no escape this time" back to "There'll be no escape for the Princess this time"
- Restores the theatrical edit of the Obi-Wan/Luke hut scene
- Removes the two new Death Star reveals
- Removes the new TIE reveal from the Death Star battle

Am I missing anything else here?

Oh, and as for the "Purist" torrent:

- There IS NO DVD-9 (dual-layer) of the Purist version.  Any that claim to be are mislabeled and are actually the full Revisited version with ALL changes intact.
- You'd want the "Purist" DVD-5 (single-layer), which should be in the ballpark of 4.5 gigs, which you can burn to a DVD-/+R and play on your DVD player.
- The smaller AVI versions are just video files you can watch on your computer - there should be one that's 700 MB, and one that's around 1400 MB (1.4 GB).  I don't remember if either of those are the "Purist" version.
- While there IS NOT a DVD-9 (dual-layer) of the "Purist" version, there IS a DVD-5 (single-layer) of the full Revisited version.  If you decide against the "Purist" edition, but don't want to download an 8-gig file or don't have a dual-layer DVD burner, the DVD-5 of the Revisited version would be what you want.

Also, if you decide on the full version and not the Revisited version, I can mail you a copy of the NTSC (USA & Canada format) DVD-9.  I do NOT have access to the Purist version, or a PAL (Europe, etc. format) copy.

Post
#326076
Topic
The Dark Knight Movie Discussion (July 18th, 2008)
Time
DarkGryphon2048 said:
ChainsawAsh said:

RE the mayor and mascara: if you've seen LOST or any other movie/show with Nestor Carbonell, he always looks like that - supposedly he has naturally thick eyelashes.

And I'm all for a proper version of the Riddler, and I'd be very intrigued to see Nolan's interpretation of the Mad Hatter as well.

And now for a little tangent of mine about the Riddler:

The Riddler in my mind needs to be an incredibly intelligent person who has an obsessive compulsion to make his crimes take the form of puzzles or traps, whilst leaving clues behind to prove that he's smarter than the police by giving them all the answers and still getting away with whatever it is he's doing.  And his only problem at all with Batman is that he's the only one who's ever outwitted him - basically, his entire anti-Batman motivation is to prove that he's smarter than Batman is.  And he should be NOTHING like the Joker - his riddles aren't jokes, they're puzzles, plain and simple.  And the question mark gimmick needs to be toned down immensely - green suit jacket, black slacks, green tie (maybe with a question mark) and a bowler hat.  No cheesy Jim Carrey-esque costume.

I think I've seen him in a few episodes of the live-action THE TICK.

 

Chain, that sounds EXACTLY like the BATMAN: The Animated Series version of The Riddler. I'd love to see that particular "rendition" on the silver screen. But who could play him?

That Firefly or Firebug could be an arsonist type. The grey-suited one.

The Mad Hatter could be great too.

 

 

Interesting - I'll need to watch the Riddler episodes of TAS again (I haven't seen it in ages and had to sell my DVDs of the first two seasons during my period in between jobs).  And I had a perfect idea for who could play that rendition of the Riddler a while ago ... then completely forgot who I'd thought of.

Post
#326001
Topic
The Dark Knight Movie Discussion (July 18th, 2008)
Time

RE the mayor and mascara: if you've seen LOST or any other movie/show with Nestor Carbonell, he always looks like that - supposedly he has naturally thick eyelashes.

And I'm all for a proper version of the Riddler, and I'd be very intrigued to see Nolan's interpretation of the Mad Hatter as well.

And now for a little tangent of mine about the Riddler:

The Riddler in my mind needs to be an incredibly intelligent person who has an obsessive compulsion to make his crimes take the form of puzzles or traps, whilst leaving clues behind to prove that he's smarter than the police by giving them all the answers and still getting away with whatever it is he's doing.  And his only problem at all with Batman is that he's the only one who's ever outwitted him - basically, his entire anti-Batman motivation is to prove that he's smarter than Batman is.  And he should be NOTHING like the Joker - his riddles aren't jokes, they're puzzles, plain and simple.  And the question mark gimmick needs to be toned down immensely - green suit jacket, black slacks, green tie (maybe with a question mark) and a bowler hat.  No cheesy Jim Carrey-esque costume.

Post
#325969
Topic
The Dark Knight Movie Discussion (July 18th, 2008)
Time
Johnny Ringo said:

I think ziz meant that the Scarecrow might have initially had a larger part in the film bit was trimmed back to what we say.

 

Ah, gotcha.  One can only hope that an alternate version of the scene exists where Cillian Murphy actually acts rather than just saying his lines in his normal tone of voice without even putting on his Scarecrow/Dr. Crane performance from BB.

Post
#325943
Topic
The Dark Knight Movie Discussion (July 18th, 2008)
Time
Ziz said:
HotRod said:

I did like the wrapping up of the Scarecrow story tho. Surprised the actor playing him (sorry, forgot his name) agreed to such a small cameo.

 

Could have been cut in the editing room.  Might be a deleted/extended scene on the DVD.

 

What do you mean?  It was there.  It wasn't well done IMO, but it was in the movie.  (One of the few aspects of the film I had a problem with)

Post
#325942
Topic
STAR WARS: EP V &quot;REVISITED EDITION&quot;<strong>ADYWAN</strong> - <strong>AVAILABLE NOW</strong>
Time

RE the Wampa scenes -

If the issue of the shoulder vs. elbow cut on the arm could be resolved, I'd suggest to remove all SE Wampa additions with the exception of the ONE shot post-amputation after Luke himself sees the creature.  That way you get a good look at the Wampa without ruining the suspense of the scene - we only see the Wampa in its full "glory" after Luke does.

I'm fine either way, just thought it'd be a compromise - but, again, this is your edit, Ady, and if you don't like it, it shouldn't be there.

Post
#325807
Topic
The Dark Knight Movie Discussion (July 18th, 2008)
Time

GhostAlpha -

You didn't like it.  We get it.  Fine.  Now do you really need to prove that you're right, or that your opinions are better than ours?  If you didn't like the movie that's fine, it wasn't your cup of tea, but do we all really need to get into these bullshit heated arguments over it because you're too bullheaded to give anyone else's opinion the time of day?

Post
#325767
Topic
The Dark Knight Movie Discussion (July 18th, 2008)
Time

Saying "anything not worked on by Bob Kane is EU" and that Kane approved the '89 film doesn't mean anything.  Comic books, just like TV shows, are never written by just one person.  Are you saying that every X-Files episoe not written by Chris Carter doesn't matter?  That every Lost episode not written by J.J. Abrams, Carlton Cuse and Damon Lindelof doesn't matter?

Batman is what every author who has penned an in-canon Batman comic has made him.  Even Kane retconned several things he originally intended himself (Batman originally *was* willing to kill people, he even carried a gun on occasion).

You're absolutely right that there is no "definitive" Batman.  Everyone's Batman is shaped by what stories they choose to build his character from, and my "definitive" Batman is different from yours because I build my basis for comparison around different comics than you do.  So in my mind, no matter what, Batman killing anyone, including the Joker, is out of character (unless it's ABSOLUTELY necessary where he has no other choice, or it was an unintended side-effect of something else i.e. Two-Face at the end.  I even had a problem with "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you" in Batman Begins.) - even if Kane originally intended him to be willing to do so.

So, since there is no "definitive" batman, there really isn't any point in having this argument, since neither one of us is right or wrong - it's just different tastes.

Oh, and one other thing, out of curiosity - "Empire" wasn't written OR directed by Lucas, so, by your definition, would you consider "Empire" to be EU?

Post
#325555
Topic
The Dark Knight Movie Discussion (July 18th, 2008)
Time
Tiptup said:

GhostAlpha26 said:

 

We were discussing a movie, not peoples personal motives, you were the one who took the discussion out of context, I didnt make anything personal before you made a personal statement about me. Its rather illogical to expect to understand someones personal feelings and reasoning as to why they liked or disliked something when you dont even know that person. And you did assume, you made an assumtion as to why I diskliked the movie without knowing what you were talking about. That is out of line to start making personal statements about why someone acted the way they did without having any background on it. If your statements were to hold up then anyone could make any statement based on no actual knowledge of what they are speaking about. If you cant understand that you made a unfavorbale personal statement towards me, then its starting to make sense how you can ignore so many holes in this movie. And Ive mired this thread enough with an argument with someone who can not see reasoning with anything logical.

lol, you condemn a benign personal statement, falsely and directly accuse someone of absolutely "assuming things" and having poor "character," and yet, in the process, you're turning right around and doing all of those same things yourself. That's what you call being logical?

His perception of you as someone who isn't giving the movie a chance is a valid perception to mention in the context of this discussion. You're both talking about the flaws you mentioned and Ash doesn't think they were bad enough to actually ruin the movie as much as you think it does. He never claimed that his perception of you was the actual truth and he wasn't saying that in a way to attack you. He's simply trying to understand why you have such a strong opinion of it all (particularly in light of the fact that he defended his thoughts logically before that point). Your personal statements, on the other hand, are clearly hostile and designed to demean others (by comparison). Grow up.

(Yes I just said you're immature. Cry about it if you want.) :)

Thank you, Tiptup, that was much more articulate than any arguments I could have made.

Post
#325478
Topic
Did anybody see Wall-E?
Time

I'm not "denying the future," as you say, I'm just saying don't take exception to a movie just because it didn't advance things as much as you'd like.  There are plenty of great movies that didn't advance the technology used in them at all, and there are plenty of awful movies that had revolutionary techniques used in them.

And I highly disagree about the whole movie feeling artificial.  That's what I feel the major advancement was - pretty much the entire opening on Earth felt real to me (except the way the "digitized video" was done, as you put it), even to the point where once or twice I caught myself forgetting it was an animated movie.  Once they got on board the Axiom, things changed, but that's to be expected.

Now if the humans on board the Axiom had looked as photo-realistic as the Earth scenes, would you still say the same thing about it, or would that be enough of an advancement for you to be able to enjoy the movie? (Note that I'm not trying to be a smartass with this statement, I'm just curious if this whole thing really brought the movie down for you that much)

Post
#325441
Topic
Did anybody see Wall-E?
Time

I really don't like the idea of 3D replacing 2D films.  I've yet to see a 3D anything that was more than a stupid gimmick.  And virtual reality?  Really?

These things don't come overnight.  There's no such thing as "revolutionary," the way you want to see it - everything that advances anything is "evolutionary," and yes, that includes the "revolutionary" concept of Toy Story being the first feature-length 3D-animated film.  It wasn't revolutionary at all, it just took things Pixar had been doing for years and made it an hour and a half long.  Why did it suceed?  The story was good, too.

If you're sick of "more boring 2d processes" when they're just coming into their own in the past two decades is like being sick of sound films after 1940.  "Okay, sound is boring, now what can we do?"  Let it mature before you consider it "boring."  There were hand-drawn animated movies for seventy years before anything close to a computer-animated movie was around, and you already expect the same drastic step away from computer-animated movies after less than twenty?  Really?

WALL-E actually made me forget I wasn't watching a live-action movie a few times, and *that* is something I consider revolutionary.  If that's not enough of an advance for you, fine, but these fantasies of "real advances" in 3D coming about anytime soon, and especially of anything coming of virtual reality in the next 20 years, are all ludicrous.

Now when you can strap me into something that will actually make me believe I'm having sex with Heather Graham, then we can talk.