Heh, I always thought to myself that if I ever taught a University course I would use your book. That was just a random thought I had a couple of months ago. Weird, huh?
Teehee. Now I can't imagine Arnie's post without reading it in the Butters voice. And it is funny. Imagine that!
For me, it was in the fall of 2004 when the OT DVDs came out, and they were filled with prequel references.
lordjedi said:
He also cheated on the Kobashi Maru, changing the program so he could win because he "doesn't like to lose". Supposedly that's shown in the new movie.
Kobayashi. Sorry, just had to nitpick. ^_~
Really? I haven't really followed much of the series beyond TOS, so I don't know. But I could've sworn I read that some original fans were displeased with TNG because Picard so closely adhered to the Prime Directive that a lot of the times they never really did anything.
I have to agree with lordjedi. Kirk disobeys orders all the time in the original series: in particular, he constantly breaks the prime directive. Any time a society acted in a way he disapproved, he got in the way. Spock would mention the Prime Directive or the Non-Interference Clause, and Kirk would pretty much say, "Screw that. This way of life sucks. I'm changing it!" Examples of this are "A Taste of Armageddon" and "The Apple." In "Amok Time," he disobeys a direct order to get Spock to Vulcan. Had T'Pau not pulled some strings, Kirk probably would have lost his command entirely. How convenient. In addition, he constantly lashed out and threatened with force as the very first option and even admitted that he was no diplomat on several occasions.
Vaderisnothayden said:I think it's understandable skyjedi wanting to say what he said on this thread. This thread was basically started to praise Lucas. For some people at least, it hurts to see Lucas praised after what he's done. And it's not like he's not praised enough over on some other sites.
I think it's not too hard to do both in this case. You can say that even the best of us do things that aren't wonderful. But you have to give credit where credit is due. His lack of respect to the Star Wars Trilogy doesn't nullify the impact his series has had on the film industry, just as those same achievements don't exonerate him from being obessive-compulsive to the point of destroying his movies.
Yeah, in Generations, Picard says that he doubts (Enterprise D) will be the last ship named Enterprise.
bkev said:My problem is that they bring it up when it has nothing to do with the conversation at hand @_@.
+1 for accuracy. This really doesn't need to turn into yet another Lucas-bashing thread. Believe me, I enjoy pointing out the horrible things he has done as much as anybody else, but we already have countless threads for that. I have to admit that negative1 sometimes gets on my nerves, but he did find something cool to make a thread about, and I'd prefer to talk about that for right now.
All that said, I find it almost impossible to dissect that entire image. If I didn't already know a lot of those names, movies, and effects, I'd have a hard time reading it. But I guess that's kinda the point. Give credit where credit is due. Star Wars generated quite a bit in the film industry, and you gotta give credit to George for pulling it all together in the first place.
Well, if that's the case, how come my "Carrie Fisher Saturday Night Live" search turned up all kinds of recent SNL clips?
But now that you say that, is it possible the NBC site has '78 SNL clips?
Damn. I was hoping to find a clip of it on YouTube. No dice? What a drag.
Um, yeah, HotRod. I see you took time out of your busy day to copy and paste Janskeet's original list. Good job, mate. ^_~
Max_Rebo said:Johnboy3434 said:Max_Rebo said:
Vaguely relevant to this discussion, basically stupid people are complaining about youtube going widescreen, this is the level of stupidity we have to contend with.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/technology/newsid_7749000/7749536.stm
I wouldn't consider those complaints "stupidity". They simply don't like the black bars. It's not really "stupidity" until they say the black bars are actually covering the picture. Then I want to smother them in their sleep.
Yeah I was probably being a bit harsh, most of them just seem to be asking to have the choice, which is a good thing, it just ammuses me that people complain about this when 16:9 is becoming the standard for tv/video, people just need to accept black bars in one form or another, they're not that bad I don't know how people can descride them as "distracting".
No, I'm gonna have to agree with you the first time. They're dumb. If they actually think that solid black bars are "distracting," one would think that the giant mass of white space that borders all YouTube videos, that are essentially bars in both directions, are distractions as well. And also the plastic border around your television... wouldn't that be a distraction, too? They only complain about this because they don't know any better or simply because they've heard other people complain about them. Hell, I was the same way growing up when I first saw widescreen VHS movies for sale. I asked about them, and my mom dismissed them because they had those black bars on them. I never asked any further questions. I simply believed they were bad because I was told they were bad.
HotRod said:Gaffer Tape said:It was added in 1981, because Empire was the first movie to showcase the new episode title system.
That's bollox... I saw a broadcast back in 78 on some tv channel I can't remember that had EP IV in the title crawl.
Don't bother to argue with me, I saw it and a few people I asked saw it too.
;)
You know, now that you mention it, I think I remember that very same broadcast, even though we're on different sides of the Atlantic Ocean, and I wouldn't be born for another eight years! I know I had an old Betamax of it that I used to watch all the time (even though I never owned a Betamax player), but then I conveniently lost it! I'm glad you brought this up!
It was added in 1981, because Empire was the first movie to showcase the new episode title system.
Touche! I guess all you can say is that Scotty's a wee bit silly no matter which universe you're coming from!
I can't really prove this, but I had always heard that those lines were added for the first mono mix, not in 1981, so if they were changed for an '81 re-release, that's where it came from.
EDIT: Whoops. Never mind.
lordjedi said:I agree with this 100%. I still have trouble convincing people that the "black bars" are suppose to be there. And now the same thing is happening with grain. If it's suppose to be there, then I have no problem with it. Hell, I use to be one of those uneducated consumers that didn't know about widescreen. Once I did find out though, that's all I wanted. Once I learned the difference between "widescreen" and anamorphic widescreen, the black bars didn't bother me at all (when I first same them on my widescreen TV, I was pissed).
Just to make sure we're on the same page, I'm not as concerned about widescreen itself as I am about original aspect ratios. It's taken nearly two decades of home video (and decades before that of television broadcasts) of chopping up movie frames to holy hell before people finally started to get educated. The only problem is, that now that widescreen TVs are becoming the norm, the opposite problem is happening with the uninformed consumer: television shows and movies are being cropped to fit this new wide television screen without pillarboxing. They did it on those crappy DBZ season box sets, and they've done it on a few Disney movies. It almost seems like we got across the wrong message. Widescreen's suddenly the new "thing," so everybody wants it wide, regardless of how it's supposed to be. Well, that, and the same people who complained about horizontal black bars and never learned any better are now complaining about vertical black bars and still probably won't know any better. It's cringeworthy when people stretch out a 4:3 image to fit a 16:9 screen. I saw my roommate go above and beyond that. He was watching a dual-sided DVD. One side was 4:3, and the other was widescreen. He was watching the pan and scan version stretched out to widescreen. I think a few synapses in my brain blew out when I realized the total lack of logic in that.
Man, I can't believe I'd been missing this thread for so long! Honestly, the title didn't really interest me, but then I noticed that it was suddenly getting a lot of traffic, so I decided to check it out! Lo and behold, a fun film discussion!
I doubt I have anything new to add at the moment, so I guess I'll just lay my own opinions on the line. For me, film preservation is a no-brainer. Yes, keep the grain! No, don't colorize! No, don't try to force something made decades ago to fit current, popular aesthetics. Don't alter aspect ratios to fit the sizes of TVs, whether that ratio is the 4:3 of SD TVs or the 16:9 of new TVs. It's all ridiculous and is going to continually be a bone of contention between people who know better and the "average consumer." And, for some reason, the average consumer is never going to be convinced to be educated.
As for the succession of technology, I consider that much more of a gray area. I've only ever done digital editing. I'd love the chance to try out editing on actual film. However, part of me wonders, like lordjedi, if the trade-off does allow for comparable results with much less fuss. It seems, especially with this digital shift in medium, that there is always some sort of trade-off, and it usually seems to be quality for ease. Some people see it as being worth it. Others don't. I'm on the fence. However, it seems that most people here agree that, ultimately, technology will win out, for better or for worse. If that is the case, and digital is ever able to provide a comparable image, I suppose it will have to come down to aesthetics, where digital provides a certain-looking image while film provides another style.
I'm curious, though. Does anybody here think that digital will ever be able to replicate the look of film (not just match resolution) that not even videophiles will be able to tell the difference? If that day comes, then I suppose that would truly be the death of film.
Vaderisnothayden said:Re the scenes not having dubbed or foleyed sound, the Jabba and Han and Biggs on Yavin scenes sure did when they were released as part of the SE and I doubt that sound was recorded with the actors in the 90s. If those scenes had it why not the others? Behind the Magic's versions of them may just have been crappy versions -maybe versions with improved sound did exist and didn't survive or weren't put on the disk for some reason.
Just so you know, not every scene in every movie has ADR. That's only done when production sound isn't adequate. It's entirely possible that what George filmed on that day contained sound that was good enough to be included in the film and didn't need to be looped.
Actually, I think if Disney made them, they'd be great.
I'm curious. Did they manage to get Ahmed Best, or is it a different actor voicing Jar-Jar?
While I can't criticize you because it looks like you copied and pasted that from the Star Wars wiki, I have to add that Darth Vader does indeed appear to have red eyes in the original film.
You should.
Oh, geez. It's posts like that that turn into debacles like DragonBall AF.