This user has been banned.
rcb said:plus is name is said twice in ROTJ by han right before he turns and accidently the pole hits bobba fetts jet pack.
Unless Ady takes the suggestion of removing Boba from ROTJ altogether (which I really hope he does) - then his name is never said.
The spoiler tag's easy: [ spoiler ] and [ / spoiler ] without the spaces. I just recently discovered it.
And as Moore was finishing the comic, issues 1-6 or something had already been released, someone pointed him to an episode of (I believe it was) The Twilight Zone where
Frustrated, but too late to change anything, Moore instead simply threw in a reference to that Twilight Zone episode in the last issue (12) of the comic (I think when Sally Jupiter is watching TV in the last few scenes), to acknowledge the similarities. He has not, however, said that he intentionally plagiarized the episode, just that it was an awkward coincidence.
The idea of the ending of season 1 ripped off the idea of the ending of Watchmen, in that
I googled for info on the new ending of Watchmen, and since there's a LOT of confusion on it, and since I just discovered spoiler tags, THIS is the truth on the ending:
In the new ending, Veidt has been working with Dr. Manhattan throughout the film, supposedly to create a machine that uses the unique qualities of Dr. Manhattan's physical makeup and "powers" as a form of clean energy that will replace all current forms. But in reality, he's creating a machine to imitate Dr. Manhattan's energy signature that will also create a blast powerful enough to destroy a major city. Then, and this is also in the novel, he frames Dr. Manhattan, making it appear that he causes others to develop cancer, alienating him from the world and causing him to leave Earth, while making everyone in the world distrust him. In the end, he uses his device to destroy major cities around the world in a manner that imitates Dr. Manhattan. Since Dr. Manhattan is gone, everyone assumes that they are under constant threat of annihilation by Dr. Manhattan, and thus everyone bands together, ending war like in the novel's ending.
But the real important part of the novel's ending is that Rorschach had more or less figured everything out and had written it down in his journal, which he later mailed to a newspaper before going off to stop Veidt, later being killed. The last frame of the comic shows a guy at the newspaper offices, his boss desperate for new material, picking up Rorschach's journal, ending with the possibility of Veidt's utopia being undone. This WILL be retained in the movie. So, even though the mechanism of the ending is changed, the message is still the same.
I figured I'd explain it since most websites seem to think that Veidt convinces Dr. Manhattan himself to destroy the cities, which doesn't make any sense and makes it sound like the writer had no idea what the hell he was doing.
Exactly - there isn't anything wrong with the original ending in my opinion, but I know that others don't feel that way. My roommate read my copy of the comic when he first saw the trailer in front of TDK and (this was before any hint of the ending change had come out) thought that it was fantastic, but the ending seemed very out of place and strangely unrealistic while the rest of the comic had presented unrealistic things in a somehow realistic manner.
It doesn't bother me, like I said, but I can see how it would bother some people.
It'll get released. All Fox really wants is free money - a cut of the profits of a film they had no involvement in making, but happened ot own the rights to. If they really wanted to block its release, they would have sued when the project was announced a year ago.
And the concerns about how close it'll be to the graphic novel stem from the confirmed changes to the ending, which, in the interest of not spoiling the movie/comic, I won't elaborate on. But the ending WILL be different. Even if the rest is pretty much spot-on.
Honestly, I don't have a problem with the change - even though I love the comic, the comic's ending would mean a lot more build-up would need to be included in the film, and it's honestly a little bit convoluted. Changing the mechanism of the ending (the message is the same) lets them remove all that build-up, while not having to add much more since a lot of it's already kind of built in to the story anyway. Plus it's less convoluted, and to the average moviegoer, would make more sense than the novel's ending which, honestly, comes a little out of left field.
We'll see in May, though. I, for one, have very high hopes for it.
The sound concerns are because Taolar used the Extended version as a base, which had ALL sound effects re-recorded in the late '90s or early '00s. The original mix IMO is much, much better, and is available on the new DVD's theatrical cut (if you have the more recent pressing, there was a mistake in the first pressing that meant it was really a 2.0 downmix of the 5.1 remaster).
Doctor M said:
Taolar said:Have you watched it yet
-T
Planned on it tonight, but some of the comments are starting to put me off the idea.
DO NOT get me wrong, I have been waiting a long time to watch this and can't wait, but it sounds like there's some remaining continuity issues to be worked out.
@ChainsawAsh: I find it ironic that you reference Dark Knight as a movie that isn't trying to set up for a sequel.
Batman Begins was designed to be exactly that while still being the better of the two films.
Also, you are assuming Dark Knight didn't originally intend to set up a 3rd film. With the demise of Heath Ledger, there is a good chance they made some last minute tweaks so they don't have to recast the Joker in the next movie.
Yes, I'll say it again and then duck: Dark Knight was the worse of the 2 new Batman films and one of the most overhyped-'Emperor Has No Clothes'-movies of all time.
In fact it pretty much blew. I would rather sit through Batman and Robin again than Dark Knight cos I was alternately bored then insulted the whole length of the film.
Mind you if you're going to rip into THOSE films, Batman Begins departed from the Batman mythology just enough to completely steal it's plot from Alec Baldwin's The Shadow (which I really would rather have seen a sequel to.)
Edit: My standalone player is robust enough to handle packet bitstreams, but won't accept mp4modifier's AR patch. Also, I don't know what I have set different from everyone else, but MY MPC plays back at 1:1 AR (when set for default). WMP is the only player it worked on for me (though I didn't try Zoom...)I'll just set MPC to 16x9 for playback, but I was hoping to watch it on my standalone... I won't be deterred.
Damn ... I seem to have hit a nerve ... well, another example is the Back to the Future movies. One is fantastic, a classic; 2, on the other hand, would have been good, except that the whole movie just feels like setup for 3 (which wasn't very good). That completely ruins it.
Don't get me wrong, the new ending for SoJ does NOT ruin the movie at all. I just feel that, as a general rule, individual movies work better when they're individual movies instead of setting up for a sequel. "Red Dragon," while it isn't fantastic, would have been less groan-inducing if it hadn't insisted on referencing "Silence of the Lambs" every chance it had.
And SoJ's ending might feel more natural when I sit and watch the whole thing all the way through. It's a great idea, and it certainly makes "Returns" feel less forced.
And I'm quite happy to hear of an edit of "Returns," which I think could be good with a little help.
And back to TDK, they didn't change the ending at all, I peeked at the shooting script's ending and it's identical - the only thing they may have changed is making it slightly less clear that Two-Face died, as in the script it very clearly says he breaks his neck in the fall. The movie is a bit more ambiguous than that. And if they really wanted to make sure they didn't need to recast the Joker, they could have shot a scene of him cutting his rope with one of his many knives and falling to his death with a double.
While I'm very aware that Nolan's Batman is not entirely faithful to the comics, I think his choices have been fantastic and I enjoy both movies very much, with the edge going to TDK. I'd love to see Batman as a live-action, hour-long-episode TV series that directly adapts certain comic stories for the majority of the episodes, ending with a feature-length adaptation of "The Dark Knight Returns," though - that would beat out Nolan's films if done right.
lorang said:
11. The sequence were Clark is begging for his powers back off his father is truly missing the Brando footage Clark just finding the green crystal leaves it unsure how he gets his power back. The Donner/Brando footage explains it way better.
100% agreed. The Brando footage really needs to be here. Not to mention, it's one of my favorite parts of the Donner cut.
(NOTE that I didn't watch the entire thing, I mostly skimmed through, but I do plan on sitting and watching the whole thing in the future - this is just what I noticed in skimming)
I also think something needs to be done to smooth out the incredibly harsh transition between late '70s effects and terrible 2000's CG in the rocket sequence
Also, I don't know what to think about the ending - on one hand, it's a pretty cool lead-in to "Returns." On the other hand, I hate it when movies reference a future sequel - that's one of the things I loved about "The Dark Knight," that they were so focused on making ONE good movie that they didn't try to lead in to a sequel, they just made this one movie the best it could be. That's just a pet peeve of mine about any movie, though.
And it seems odd that Lois would be left remembering who Superman was, though you set it up for "Returns," where she doesn't.
Finally, I agree about the Luthor/Fortress of Solitude thing - why the hell did he go there, and how the hell did he know it existed?
Oh, and if anything can be done to make the Donner Cut of II's Brando footage match the first movie's, that'd be nice, too - the face doesn't quite have the same look to it.
We have Comcast here at home, and Firefox and Safari work just fine on my Mac, and IE works just fine on my parent's business computer and my brother's computer. So I don't think it's Comcast. You probably have a firewall that's blocking IE as a program.
And I didn't realize that a browser could be blocked at that level - I'm aware it happens with certain sites, but I didn't think an ISP would even be capable of doing that.
Johnny Ringo said:well i have the original and the boxset...i'll take a screenie...
well well, it would seem you are correct, Here is the original dvd version title...
I wonder why they would do that, it really makes no sense, at least to me.
Wow ... that is really stupid ... especially since the sequels both use the same style of opening credits, and read "THE MATRIX" then their subtitle. I don't think they changed that, did they?
Johnny Ringo said:I think you should remove the title as is since it actually simply reads 'matrix' rather than 'the matrix' - The movie is marketed as THE Matrix and characters within the story always refer to it as THE matrix and not just matrix.
Really? My copy (the old snapper-case DVD) reads "THE MATRIX" very clearly in the opening credits. Is this something that they changed for the newer DVD/HD/BR, like the color scheme?
Ah, just realized you mentioned that in your post - yeah, it's not very good quality. I'd much rather have a nice, DVD-quality version of it before I watch it, as well.
Wow. That description actually sounds ... good.
There's a low-quality xvid of it up on Mininova. It's 800MB for a near-3 hour movie, though, so it kinda looks like crap, but it's definitely the Cannes cut. (Haven't watched all of it, though.)
adywan said:AxiaEuxine said:Ady are you really thinking of not having Yoda use his saber?
He won't be seen with a lightsaber until ROTS when he beheads the troops.
That is fantastic news! Will the Sidious/Yoda duel still be in, then? In all honesty, I'd 100% prefer NEVER seeing him with a lightsaber, but the troop-beheading is pretty sweet, and it's clearly in self-defense with no wasted agressive movements (mind you, I only saw ROTS in the theaters, so I don't remember 100%). I'd accept that. I'd still argue against ANY other Yoda-with-lightsaber scenes, especially the Yoda/Sidious duel, just because I also think the Emperor should NEVER be seen with a lightsaber, as well.
AxiaEuxine said:I love the Jar-Jar idea but why would he take 3po out of TPM and AOTC?
Because he doesn't do anything or serve any purpose other than fan service. He doesn't do anything in ROTS, either, but it's not too much of a stretch for him to be Padme's personal droid.
I think that'd be a great design if someone (*cough*Ady*cough*) wanted to do a painted version as opposed to photographic. The cut-up photos just reminds me too much of the official GOUT covers.
My suggestion would be to keep Season 1 as is.
Then take Seasons 2 and 3, and re-cut them into about 10-15 episodes to make a legitimately *good* Season 2 to replace the ones that exist. Then, when Season 4 comes and Bryan Fuller returns, hopefully the show will return to being good, and I can just replace Seasons 2 and 3 on my DVD shelf with this edit.
Bear in mind, however, I stopped watching at around 3.5 or 3.6, so I don't know what's doing with S3, and if my idea can be done. And it started off so promising ...
Based on what I've seen, the main thing that needs to be changed is character motivations. The biggest problem with S2 and what I saw of 3 is that instead of putting established characters in a situation and following how they would act, they changed the characters to make them fit in their new stories. Kind of like sanding down a square peg to fit in a round hole, but I wanted to see how the square peg figured out how to get through on its own without being forcibly changed. If the characters had changed in natural ways, then I'd have been fine with the changing characterizations, but they didn't, so I wasn't. Hiro, Peter and Claire are the two biggest examples of this.
IMO the best thing Fuller can do with Season 4 is have Hiro time-travel to the end of Season 1, make sure Peter dies for real with the explosion thing, killing him along with it, thus getting rid of both time-travellers once and for all, and ignoring the fact that seasons 2 and 3 ever happened. Start anew. The time-travelling was starting to make the show far too convoluted.
Sevb32 said:Bob and Tom?, you must be from Indiana like me! Most people probably did not get that because they are not from Indiana.
Funny - I'm from NW Indiana (Michigan City, to be exact). Though I'm living in Chicago for school now.
Wow, I really like what you've done there, Ady. I think those complaining about the AT-AT number are just used to the old amount, the same way I was used to the old Death Star battle at first (I even hated the SE version of it, and that wasn't that different), but I got used to that real quick.
C3PX said:Dude, seriously, why are you wasting precious time chewing out people for complaining about Star Trek in a thread intended for complaining about Star Trek?
Following your same line of logic, there are a bazillion other threads for discussing ST on this forum, including at least one dedicated to the new movie, feel free to complain about complaining in there, but if you are getting annoyed at people giving the new film a hard time, maybe it wouldn't hurt to ignore this whole thread.
Just a thought.
You know what? You're right.
Guys, here's the thing.
He's not making a movie to please you. He's making a movie to tell a story that he wants to tell that works well within the Star Trek universe. If you can't deal with that, well, don't go see it, and enjoy the 500 other episodes/movies that you can watch instead. You say you want more Star Trek, then bitch about how the last X amount of Star Trek-related TV and movies have ruined the franchise.
Do what I do with Star Wars: Pretend that those last X amount of things that ruined the franchise never happened. Watch the things that you like - TOS and DS9, or TOS and TNG, or TNG and Voyager, whatever, and just pretend that the rest don't exist and never did. Then, ignore anything else that comes out that doesn't look good, instead of constantly bitching about it because, guess what, THAT WON'T FUCKING CHANGE ANYTHING.
This philosophy has been working well for me - the films that came out in 1977, 1980, and 1983 exist, as do Timothy Zahn's Thrawn Trilogy. After that, nothing ever happened, and I'm ignoring any new Star Wars that comes out that has to tie to the new movies and TV shows that don't exist to me. I don't bitch about them, because it won't change anything. They'll still be made, and there will still be people who will watch them. But you don't have to.
I, for one, am going to give JJ's Trek a chance. Why? Because until I hear anything about the story and can base my judgment on that, nothing about the movie has made me think it'll be bad.
CG? Who cares anymore? All big-budget sci-fi movies today have tons of CG. You can't not like a movie solely because of the effects.
The ship doesn't look like the TOS ship? No shit - that ship was designed in the early '60s. It would look dated as hell today. And I think the new one looks pretty sweet while maintaining the basic overall design of the original.
The bridge doesn't look like the TOS bridge? See above - that would look RETARDED today, I'm sorry but it's true. If you're going to make something that takes place 200 years from now, the technology has to feel like it's 200 years ahead of us, or the audience isn't going to accept it. TOS accomplished that in the '60s, but today people wouldn't accept that since that looks, well, like it's from the '60s.
If you're willing to give it a chance, don't bitch until you've seen it. If you aren't willing to give it a chance, then pretend it's not happening and quit your whining and watch the hundreds of other Star Treks you could watch that you *do* like.
I 100% agree with using the theatrical Paths of the Dead sequence. The EE totally ruined any suspense there, plus it made the cool moment of the Dead attacking the ships into something redundant and boring.
And I'd suggest cutting the EE addition of Frodo and Sam wearing orc armor in Mordor - I always thought that bit was just stupid and didn't fit with the movie at all.
Caprica did get picked up, a full 20-episode season order, with the first 2 being the 2-hour pilot that was shot last year. The rest of the season is being shot this summer.
Johnny Ringo said:I noticed that some people were discussing gunshot sound effects earlier.
I probably shouldn't do this or talk about this in an open forum, but I'm in a unique position here at school where I have access to the sound libraries of many of the major Hollywood studios (including Lucasfilm, though for some reason that only includes things like jungle sound effects).
So, until December 13th (when the semester ends and my access expires), if anyone has any requests for specific sound effects, I'll check out the library, see what I can find, and post them on Rapidshare.
Also, since I'm starting Editing 1 next semester, I *may* have access to the sound libraries next semester as well, but I am NOT SURE if that's the case. If so, I'll let you guys know.
If anyone has requests for sound effects, please PM me - I'd like to keep this hush-hush so I don't get kicked out of film school and ruin my future career in the process. But I'd love to help you guys out, too.
And remember, after December 13th, I won't be able to access this again, unless Editing 1 allows us to do so (in which case I'll be able to get effects again at the beginning of February).
Got access to a nice clean recording of a wilhelm scream?
:)
I think that's in there, believe it or not - I recall it being mentioned by my prof. earlier in the semester. I'll check.
