EyeShotFirst

It's funny how restoring the old shots, actually make them look more believable than the "improved" shots of the Special Edition. I always loved the look of the first Star Wars, but when compared to the rest of the trilogy, I felt it actually looked its age, where the others still looked pretty modern.

Seeing the little bits that Mike has been showing, that is no longer the case. It turns out the copies of the film I've watched just look like shit, and the movie looked just as good as the following 2 films. In all actuality, I think it's making the other 2 look worse in comparison. Of course, the other 2 haven't been torn apart at the levels of Star Wars, so what could they look like?

It is sad that they were so lazy with their restorations at Lucasfilm, when they have much better resources.

Beatleboy99 said:

FanFiltration said:

Beatles - "White Album" (mono)

 That's very interesting. The white album is the only Beatles album that I actually prefer the stereo mix for.

Mine as well. I think they finally got the hang of stereo mixing. It has an almost muddy quality on the mono mix. Their other albums sound better in mono, because they have a fullness. There is too much air in the stereo versions, and the hard panning really bothers my ears.

stretch009 said:

Good post, I agree with everything in it except there's still that one thing from your first post that 'Obscured' trumps IMO.  "Good set of songs" or not it still has more songs leaning toward the 'Dark Side' sound than Meddle does.  I'm not taking anything away from Meddle at all, it's awesome IMO. 

BTW when you say 'audible journey' are you talking about concept albums which they are probably the kings of:

Yeah, I enjoy when a band takes more of a symphonic structure to their albums. Not in a instrumentation sense, but thematically, or in groups like Emerson, Lake, and Palmer with different motifs and variations on a theme. I think with The Wall, they did an okay job with that, but I don't think the album does as much with it's time-frame as Dark Side of the Moon did. The songs I consider "filler" work within the album, but Dark Side of the Moon is an album that every song could've been a single. I think what is missing in The Wall is the lack of Rick's input. It's a good album, but it's missing that wonderful sonic quality that Rick gave the albums. It reminds of listening to Let It Be from The Beatles. I feel like I'm listening to a band that can't stand to be together. There are some amazing songs on that album, but you can hear it all crumbling.

I still don't believe it's as simple as all that. I think the basic ingredients of the Chuck Berry, Elvis, and Buddy Holly "Rock 'N' Roll" are still very much a part of the AC/DC, Led Zeppelin, and Van Halen "Rock".

The amps were louder, the chords were more simplistic, and the sexual innuendos were more blatant, but it's still basically the same idea. Hearing country in it doesn't matter. I can hear jazz, country, blues, classical, funk, and world in any of the big name "rock" bands.

It's like the difference in Paul Whiteman's Jazz and Miles Davis' Jazz. They are still Jazz, no point in adding a subcategory to it to separate them.

stretch009 said:

Nanner Split said:

[quote=stretch009]

 'Echoes' from Meddle is great but other than that I think the album preceding Dark Side 'Obscured by Clouds' is better and displays even more of what you would eventually hear on Dark Side.

"Meddle" owns and "One of These Days" is one of the best songs they've ever done

 I don't disagree with any of that but have you listened to 'Obscured...'?

 Obscured By Clouds is a good set of songs, but it doesn't flow like Meddle or Dark Side of the Moon. Meddle has that audible journey that Pink Floyd albums take you on.

I never thought Tatooine could look so great. I didn't think that shot or the Mos Eisley Spaceport reveal could ever be so clear. I've never seen the details you have brought out. I never noticed the ships leaving Yavin in any version, it always just looked like noise.

I honestly don't understand why people don't talk about Pink Floyd's Meddle. It has everything you could possibly want from a Pink Floyd album. They didn't just stumble upon the sound they got on Dark Side of the Moon.

You get all these douchey teens walking around with an Animals shirt on, that haven't even heard the damn album. I'll be honest, I've never been able to sit through the whole album.

Nobody gives Meddle love, and it's as much Pink Floyd as you could hope for.

I love Ted Nugent's debut album. Got an original pressing of it. I like to blast Snakeskin Cowboys every now and then.

Favorite classic rock album? Just one pick?

I'll exclude Pink Floyd from the list, because I love them, but I don't feel they were just a rock group.

I think the only fair way to go about it, is to pick an album that I enjoy every song off of. It might not be the greatest album ever, but if I really enjoy the songs, then it gets the spot.

Van Halen - Van Halen (1978)

I chose this album, because I probably listened to this album in it's entirety more times than any album of it's era. As a guitarist, it inspired me a lot, and while I think Van Halen got better after this, their later albums had some songs I just didn't care for.

Honorable Mentions:

Dire Straits - Dire Straits - It inspired me as a guitarist, and I enjoyed every song, I just usually don't listen to it in it's entirety. My absolute favorite guitar album.

Creedence Clearwater Revival - Cosmo's Factory - Same as above.

Billy Joel - Glass Houses - I didn't feel it counted as a classic rock album.

Queen - A Night at the Opera - Loaded with great songs, but had some songs I just couldn't care for. You cannot beat the mixture of Mercury's harmonies and Brian May's guitar work.

I share your appreciation of that box set. It reminds me of a simpler time when poster art was used for covers. There was something special about those VHSs.

I think my list has changed a bit in the last 4 years.

1. Amadeus

2. Blade Runner

3. Once Upon a Time in the West

4. The Searchers

5. American Graffiti

6. Braveheart

7. Raiders of the Lost Ark

8. The Empire Strikes Back

9. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

10. Goodfellas

Honorable mentions: Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia, Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore, Citizen's Band, Alien, Immortal Beloved, The Fifth Element, Cool Hand Luke, and Rocky.

http://www.swonvideo.com/

This site, run by Video Collector, is your best resource, though I don't believe he has any high resolution scans. You might ask him though.

Also, ChainsawASH made some covers, a good few years back that I think are closest to what you are talking about. I had a similar set, but it was based off of the widescreen set with the fat box.

I have thought about buying a box set just to scan, but either people want way too much money for them, or the sets are in bad shape.

I don't believe anybody on here has made an actual high resolution set utilizing that box set. Most have had to recreate it, which is hard, because the images used on the backs where production stills that are hard to find in decent quality for the average hobbyist.

It's not a perfect film, by all means, but when you compare it to it's competition...

When I was beginning my edit of NSNA, I came to the realization that it had a lot going for it, but didn't touch Thunderball as far as classic Bond feel. Thunderball just drags and drags, where I feel NSNA has a much tighter pacing, but Thunderball has everything that NSNA needs. It's got the music, the look, the charm, Q, M, Moneypenny and all the quirks that make a Eon film a Bond film. This film didn't even let him have a Walther PPK.

I think the issue with Thunderball is the overly long underwater sequences. I have a much harder time focusing on the film. In fact one of the last times I watched it, I fell asleep.

I think in order to make the perfect Thunderball/NSNA, one would need to simply take Thunderball and trim the fat.

I think NSNA was neat to see Connery go at it again, but it would've been a better treat to have seen him in a different Bond plot. NSNA was made out of spite and bad blood from all involved parties.

The sad reality to the whole thing is the fact that Star Wars isn't the only film being used as toilet paper. It's probably just the most blatant in it's desecration. Nearly every film I have on Blu Ray is a bastardized mess that has been chopped, scrubbed, and slapped together in some Frankenstein creation that isn't original. 

It's ridiculous that they can get away with that in film. It would be like buying a new release of an album you really love, only to find out that all the instruments have been re-recorded and sections of the songs where re-written. It happens quite often, but not at the level it does in film.

You can almost guarantee something was fucked with on each consecutive release.

It's pretty sad that fans with "lesser" materials are doing a better job than the people with resources galore.

"It's working, it's working!!"

So said George Lucas when he looked at his bank account.

Zelda deserves a good anime. I think anime is the best way to do it justice, plus you wouldn't have such a struggle to find somebody to play Link. You could focus solely on their acting abilities, as opposed to their appearance.

You're making me want to bust out my Gamecube.

^Zelda games always do that with the titles though. Adventure of Link and A Link to the Past seem to be the only ones that make any reference to Link in the title, with the latter being a play on words.

hairy_hen said:

I don't necessarily see him as being the most talkative sort, considering he usually lives alone and tends to react to things rather than initiating them, but it would fall completely flat to force a live action version of him to never speak.  In my experience with the world of Zelda fanfic, most of those who write him as silent tend to be unable to conceive of how to convincingly adapt the gameplay into a realistic depiction of the characters and setting.  (There are exceptions, of course; I've seen it done well before, but it's extremely difficult to pull off.)

A few years ago I spent a lot of time writing a story based on Twilight Princess, and in it I depicted Link as being both soft-spoken and generally disinclined to engage in lengthy conversations, but perfectly capable of expressing himself well when he needs to.

 I think Twilight Princess gave us more of Link as a person than any of the other Zelda games. You get more of a sense of who Link is. That's probably why I connected to it more than Skyward Sword. I always kind of felt there was something odd about the fact that he lived outside of the village. It was hinting that maybe he didn't feel like he belonged. 

Zelda games always seem to focus on what Link has to do. Twilight Princess seemed to focus more on Link. You even get some of his emotional struggle. Majora's Mask had moments like that, but didn't really go into it as far as Twilight Princess did.

I want to see Link's struggle. I think a good hero story must have low point.

ray_afraid said:

Ya know, after thinking about it, there's nothing they could do with Link that I'd like.
The best thing about him in the game is that the player is Links personality.

 That's why I think it's such a hard decision. Link has also been reincarnated about 100 times and he never got the continual story that Mario had. Mario got to have a personality. Mario got a voice, and it's been the same voice for 20 years.

Tomb Raider, even though movie was sub-par, should've been the easiest adaptation to make. Lara Croft talked and had a personality game 1, that's a lay up as far as directing to screen.

I agree with DrCrow about 2d animation being the route to go, but it doesn't seem like that's what is gonna happen. I think it would do better for an anime company to handle it.

I don't know if I would go with the Link being mute, maybe he's antisocial or the strong but silent type.

I think most of the dialogue that Link would be lacking could be made up by the side character.

I also think the safe route would be to make him the ultimate do gooder. He'd have to be brave like a Goku or Superman. The one thing you can gather from Link is he is always ready to defend the people he cares about.

Maybe Link could be more like Luke Skywalker was in the first Star Wars film, less whiny of course. We've seen him countless times as a small village type who suddenly has to take up arms and fight.

As a lifelong Zelda fan, I can say that I share the apprehension that many feel when it comes to something like this. Link is such an odd character, because he never has talked, and aside from tiny little character quirks, he isn't very interesting on his own. Zelda isn't really about Link at the end of the day. It's the experience the player gets out of it. Link just happens to be the avatar in which you inhabit in the world of Hyrule.

That being said, I'm not terribly against the idea either. The problem lies solely with Link. Picking a personality for an iconic character that doesn't have a set personality is a risky decision.

I'm not worried about Link talking. I've been one of the people hoping for voice acting in a Zelda game for a long time. I also hope they get somebody fairly young. The oldest Link has ever been is about 17, so seeing somebody in their late 20's doing it wouldn't be a good idea. Link always had kind of the adolescent Peter Pan thing going on.

I would be thrilled to see some unknowns play all the parts, kind of like how Star Wars, Harry Potter, and other big franchises made the actors stars, instead of the other way around.

Though it could prove fatal to their career. When you get somebody unknown to play a character that is already iconic, and they fail to live up to the people's expectations, you get:

This is great, I plan on making an ultimate TGBU for personal use soon.

They actually don't ruin the first one. They are so different, they don't feel connected. It's like some of the crappier Bond films don't ruin the good ones. The tone is too different.

I think most of the directors I love are hit and miss, so I will also list the films I love the most from them.

John Ford - The Searchers, Stagecoach, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, Wagon Master, The Wings of Eagles, 

Sergio Leone - The Dollars Trilogy, Once Upon a Time in the West

Steven Spielberg - Duel, Jaws, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Jurassic Park, Close Encounters, Temple of Doom, E.T.

Alfred Hitchcock - Vertigo, Man Who Knew Too Much, Rear Window, Psycho, North By Northwest, Notorious

Ridley Scott - Alien, Blade Runner

Jonathan Demme - Citizen's Band, Melvin and Howard, Silence of the Lambs

Martin Scorsese - Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore, Goodfellas, Taxi Driver

George Lucas - American Graffiti, Star Wars, THX-1138

Mel Brooks - Blazing Saddles, Young Frankenstein, Producers, History of the World Part 1

Miloš Forman - Amadeus, One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest

Tim Burton - Big Fish, Beetlejuice, Batman, Batman Returns, Edward Scissorhands, Mars Attacks

Stanley Kubrick - 2001: A Space Odyssey, Eyes Wide Shut, The Shining

Robert Zemeckis - Back to the Future Part 1 and 2, Death Becomes Her, Cast Away

Walter Hill - Hard Times, Crossroads

The Coen Brothers - Raising Arizona, O Brother Where Art Thou, The Big Lebowski, Fargo, No Country For Old Men, True Grit

I do think it would be wise to grab up a lesser-known. There's gotta be some rough around the edges character actors that don't get the leading man, pretty boy roles of today. I love it when unknowns get big roles. It's sort of a middle finger to the craft to keep handing these roles to the same handful of actors. Look at how many shitty comedies Jason Bateman keeps doing, because he's "That guy".

The way Hollywood has been doing things, they would give it to a Ryan Goseling or Bradley Cooper, because they are already big names and they make the girls giggle. Or they'll give it to Joseph Gordon Levitt or James Franco.

Hollywood is lacking new rugged actors. Sure, they'll have the muscles and the stubble, but none of them have that hard working look that the older actors had. Every leading guy looks like a damn Abercrombie and Fitch model.

I've watched 5 films from director Michael Winner and actor Charles Bronson

(1972) Chato's Land

Charles Bronson in a Western, count me in. This film is packed with excellent actors, great locations, and great performances. The only issue I really had with the film was it's length. This film sort of goes into the wicked relentless white man after the (insert minority here) category that was quite popular after the civil rights movement. This movie does make you care, but it also goes for the cheap drama. Michael Winner doesn't like for Charles Bronson to have a nice quiet family life in any film they make together. If Charles Bronson has a family member in a Michael Winner movie, they are going to get raped, killed, or a combination of both. I enjoyed watching this, solely for my love of Charles Bronson. I would recommend it to fans of the revisionist Western film. It has touches of Peckinpah.

(1972) The Mechanic

I enjoyed this quite a bit. This is the only film from the pair that didn't feature a rape sequence. It reminded me a lot of Leon The Professional. There was a lot of tension in this film. It's probably the most subdued of the Winner/Bronson collaborations. All around enjoyable film, much like the very similar Death Wish. I never watched the remake, so I cannot comment on the similarities therein. I will say, good luck getting me to watch a Jason Statham movie.

(1974) Death Wish

This film is much like so many other franchise starters, in the fact that it was a good movie, followed by not-so-good movies. This was a great film and it had an excellent look to it. Bronson isn't a bad ass in this film, and it's nice to see. Little moments like him having a breakdown after his first kill, really brought out the human side of the character. The transition from pacifist architect to vigilante is excellent.

(1982) Death Wish II

This film isn't as cartoony as the later entries, but this started the "same shit, different city" formula of the later films. This movie boasts not 1, not 2, but THREE rape scenes. It also has 1980's written all over it. Guitar and Synth heavy soundtrack brought to you buy Jimmy Page himself. It also has more guns, shit blowing up, and people dying. It still has some heart in places, you still feel that Kersey is just a man who has taken too much for too long. I would recommend it only if you want more Death Wish.

(1985) Death Wish 3

This film already pissed me off for not conforming to the roman-numeral titling system of the previous entry. This one feels more like an HBO film. Just schlock, vulgarity, and not one damn given. Bigger guns and goofier gang members. It also was too lazy to actually film in New York, instead a small English town is supposed to pass for NYC. I actually had to watch this little by little, as I just didn't care. It feels like The Three Stooges, Home Alone, and Die Hard were thrown in a big pot. I don't know whether it wants to be taken seriously or if Michael Winner placed his tongue directly in his cheek. The gang is also very unbelievable. A gang leader should have an air of "Don't mess with this guy" about him. Instead, he looks out of place.

People could argue that he might be manipulative like Charlie Manson, but you don't really see any of that. The gangs in the previous films all sort of seemed to just do what they wanted to do, and didn't have a set leader. You also don't relate to Bronson's character in this film. He goes from being a guy, any of us could be, to being an unflinching badass. He walks from scene to scene without any tension what so ever, as people around him are spitting blood and blowing up. Characters are killed left and right without any attention brought to them. Jimmy Page is just rocking out, instead of putting in a little "Somebody important died" music. It's just a careless mess, and it feels more like a shitty war movie than the midnight vigilante film from the previous entries. I wouldn't recommend this to anybody. It also has a trope that I've noticed in a lot of older films in having to have marching music in the background when military weapons are revealed. Why did they get Jimmy Page?

So in reviewing these films I've learned one thing; it ain't a Michael Winner film, if somebody didn't get raped.

I still maintain that Charles Bronson, though concreted in popular culture as a bad ass, was a fine actor. He reminds me of actors like Warren Oates who were so natural, you didn't realize how great they actually were.

As long as they don't do some shitty origins intro with Indy driving a mustang off of a cliff as a young kid.