Ghostbusters

I wonder if George Lucas is actually smarter than we think and decided that he would make more money off of the prequels being bad than good. I mean look at all the publicity they have gotten. They are still writing articles and making reviews on them over 5 years after they were finished. Do you think they would be getting this much attention still being good? 

Look at the Irate Gamer, I wonder if this is all a deliberate act because he knows bad publicity is better than good publicity in his case.

Adywan, your comments that were removed from this article, did they repost them or let you submit again?

I really hope RedLetterMedia reviews the OT too. I know there isn't as much to complain about with those, but he can give it a fair film analysis pointing out the good things about the movies, while molesting woman.

brash_stryker said:

Sshhh! Don't remind him he said that. He might change his mind ;-)

That doesn't make sense. So you hope that he will more likely make ANH Revisited in HD because he forgot he changed his mind?

Adywan, you need to update the info page of your facebook ANH Revisited Page. http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=85531634143#!/group.php?gid=85531634143&v=info

On the bottom you say this:

Adywan:

I didn't use any HD footage for the edit. I was too far into the edit before a HD source became available and i didn't want to start from scratch.
There wouldn't be any benefit for me to release an upscaled version of ANH:R and i won't be doing a HD version of ANH:R unless a restored HD version of the theatrical edition miraculously shows up and we all know that isn't going to happen.
You are better off letting a good player upscale the DVD

December 12, 2010 OT.com forum.

Jambe, less than a month ago maybe more, I emailed you on youtube asking when this would be finished and at the time you said "Star Wars Begins will be completed in a few months." Well to my surprise, I see Adywan say on Twitter that it is done. Wow, most of the time projects like these take longer than what they estimate. So why did it cost so much to get your hard drive recovered? Didn't you back it up?

Nice to meet you Troll.

Jay said:

I'll just quote myself from the other topic in Feature Requests:

Jay said:

I'm glad I get feedback like this and definitely want to continue this discussion. I'm a huge proponent of usability and want to hear from everyone.

While I see many forums with layouts that expand to fit the available space, I see very few good web sites that do. I don't understand--at all--how people read long forum posts on a widescreen monitor with lines of text that stretch into infinity. I think Windows has done a horrible job of training people over the last 10 years to expect windows to fill all available space and for the content to follow suit; ironically, one of the things Windows has always done worse than Mac is managing the actual windows :)

In my experience, moving from variable width to fixed width is jarring at first simply because it's different. Once people become accustomed to it, going back to variable width looks strange...mostly because it is. Shifting blocks of content to make better use of available space is fine and makes sense with web content expected to be viewed on monitors of various sizes, but stretching out the text on linear user-based content so it flows across an entire widescreen monitor is simply bizarre, and a fine example of learned behavior.

I'm not entirely sure why you feel the need to increase the zoom level on your browser here, but not elsewhere. We use a pretty standard 12 pixel font size for posts (typical for forums and larger than a lot of sites). The quote font size is smaller so it takes up less space, but I'm working on a solution for that as well (showing only the first few lines of a quote and letting the user hover/click to view the rest). None of these things have changed in the new layout and they won't change if I add a skin that's variable width. I am concerned to hear that you find that this site requires more zooming than others, so please post more thoughts on this point if you can.

I'm working on the image solution. I know it's a problem. But, as I said here, all these large images are a nuisance and they have to go. Again, only in forums do I see this kind of content. Good sites manage images much more cleanly through thumbnails and zooming. Large images embedded within the content simply don't work on the web. Users should be linking to these images, not embedding them.

Fixed width vs. variable width is a longstanding debate, and like all usability decisions, what works for many or most people will leave a few people displeased because people are different. The best you can do is choose what you think is the best decision based on your experience and then provide an easy out for those who don't fit into that mold--in this case, an optional variable width layout.

 

I tried to find the option for the widescreen format, but couldn't find it, where is it? Does it still exist? Most people have widescreen monitors these days, is it really necessary to accommodate a small minority at the expense of the rest of us? 

Sometimes it won't recognize the web address and I get this image:

I have to change my DNS to get in. Does anyone know why this is happening to me? Is anyone else having problems logging in? I have comcast and I have issues with their DNS from time to time.

TheBoost said:

TV's Frink said:

Ghostbusters said:

I know you guys are sick of me making threads about every movie I see

 

 I'm not. There's not a lot of discussion on the "Last Movie Scene" thread.

On the other hand, a creepy little tool like "The Social Network" guy and "Citizen Kane?" I don't see it. There's no enigma, no depth to "TSN." Just a guy who was a jerk and came out on top.

I disagree totally. There's just as much depth to the fictional character of Mark Zuckenberg in the movie as Charles Foster Kane IMO.

Sluggo said:

(I got sick of the Luca$h)

LOL, I love that. I too was wondering how much was pre-thought out before making the prequels. It doesn't seem like much. It seems "Laca$h" LOL, wants you to think he had it all laid out since he finished writing ANH. He claims that he wanted the episode number and title in the opening crawl of ANH for its initial release, but Fox studios wouldn't let him because he claims it would be too confusing for the audience. I'm not sure I buy that. I haven't heard much leaking as to what Lucas really had pre-written for the prequels while making the OT. It's obvious the "there is another" quote was compromised to Liea when Lucas decided to make it a trilogy and not a sexology? Lucas originally wanted the story to expand to another jedi in hiding that Luke would go looking for. When I first heard the title "Return of the Jedi" I thought it meant plural and that a couple or many Jedi were going to come back in fighting the empire in this move. But it turns out to just be Luke as the returning of the jedi and maybe Anakin? I think Lucas did have an earlier draft of the prequels than what he began to write in '94 that was far better than his more recent outline he called "the beginning." I really wish he would not have taken that long 13 maybe 14 year break between making ROTJ and TPM. I think the prequels would have turned out much better if he would have continued without the long break and just worked with what he had instead of waiting for technology to catch up with his ideas.

My favorite quote from BadAssKeith:

"I'm doing this because of GL complete disrespect for history, his fans, and art. Not for money and the originals. Those are just the tools for revenge. Since it seems money is the only thing that will get Lucasfilm's attention anymore no matter how stupid or poor and stupid the art they produce is."

twooffour said:

TheBoost said:

I disagree with any law that tells someone what they must do with their intellectual property. As much as I enjoyed the 1985 pro wrestling comedy "Body Slam" I don't presume that the owners of that piece of entertainment are obligated to preserve it or present it to me in any high quality format, if at all.

However, I think a rule that packaging must honestly proclaim what is in it, both in food and DVDs is a fair rule, especially in the case of "Star Wars" where LFL has intentionally created so much public confusion.

 

I think what this all comes down to, at the end of the day, is that those films AREN'T purely "Lucas' intellectual property" - he wasn't like some sort of composer responsible for each last note, and the last two movies... well, do I need to go on? Empire was basically Kershner's work. He did meddle with that one the least, though... 

 

So, if anything should become a discussion at congress or whatever - if it ain't already - is the concept of "intellectual property" and its possible abuse.

Well said twooffour

+1

TV's Frink said:

Ghostbusters is starting to remind me of BadAssKeith.

That was some of the funniest shit I've ever read. I have to admit, I've had the same thoughts and temptations hes had, but I'm not mentally unstable, well at least my shrink hasn't said that yet.

ChainsawAsh said:

But double-dipping is just economics.  It makes the studio more money, so why wouldn't they do that?  If consumers buy into it, that's their problem, but I see no reason why it should be illegal.

I'm not saying it should be illegal, just annoying.

I know you guys are sick of me making threads about every movie I see, but this movie deserves a thread of it's own. I just couldn't believe how good this movie was. It's a modern day Citizen Kane about a computer genius that acts humble on the outside but is really a selfish a-hole on the inside because he's pissed off he can't get laid. It's intertwined very smart on how it plays out as a mystery of whether he means well or not and is unclear what he is aware of and what is just a lack of social cognitive. I think the movie says so much about modern society of our youth.   

ChainsawAsh said:

What about a film that underwent severe cuts due to censorship upon its initial release?  By your law, if the studio is able to restore the cuts and release the film uncensored, they would have to include the censored version too, since that's what appeared in theaters on its initial run.  That would just cause too many headaches.

What if you've already released the original theatrical cut, then you have a director's cut you want to release?  By your law, you'd have to include the theatrical cut with the director's cut, even if the theatrical cut had had a prior release.

The government doesn't need to be involved in everything.  A law such as that would cause a lot more headaches than you seem to anticipate.

And a law requiring them to utilize the full capacity of the disc?  That's stupid.  That limits a lot of what you can do with extra features, commentaries, picture-in-picture commentaries, lossless audio mixes, etc.  Plus, most films don't need the full capacity of the disc.  Requiring them to use it is wasteful.

ChainsawAsh, you're blowing this out of proportion. I'm not saying every version of movies released has to include the original version, just ONE version with current and future media formats. They can sell them seperately too, but I feel there is too many different versions of movies these days. I think the law should include demands to consolidate versions of movies into less releases. Look at how many times the Star Wars Trilogy has been released. First the 2004 set, then the 2005 set that didn't include the bonus disk, then the infamous disks sold separately in 2006 with GOUT and then the 2008 OT sold again in a barebone set. I'm actually not sure what the 2008 set contained. I'll have to get back on that. But my point is that Star Wars and many other films series have been released too many times. Maybe we should call this a film standard petition run buy the Institution of Film? Not necessarily a law run by the government? Could that work? I'm going to PM you a question that is completely unrelated  ChainsawAsh. 

ChainsawAsh said:

They never advertised it as anything but "The Star Wars Trilogy," IIRC, but they did acknowledge in interviews/press releases that it would be the Special Editions and not the originals.

HOWEVER, I don't think they ever said that additional changes were being made.  When the Hayden-in-ROTJ shot was leaked a few weeks early, most people thought it was a fake, and that Lucas would never do something like that.  Obviously, they were wrong.

And despite me being a purist, I hate the idea of bringing the "law" into it, especially as in your last paragraph which is just ridiculous.

ChainsawAsh, what is so ridiculous about my idea to require film companies to include original theatrical release versions with updated versions in equal quality on blu-ray and DVD?  What's wrong with having a few common sense requirements like stating changes made and labeling versions properly? I don't see why this is an unreasonable law to be in place and I wonder why there are no standards for film? With the internet it has made these requirements unnecessary as people can jump on imdb and many other movie websites and find all the information they need about versions of movies.

Most movie companies have enough common sense to make their movie in the best possible quality when released on media, currently DVD and blu-ray. But unfortunately Lucasfilm doesn't have the desire to do that. It's is also the movie company with the most loved and successful film franchise in history. If I wanted to make plea for this law where do I start?

additional changes added to the '97 SE with no originaltrilogy? Nowhere on the boxes or in the advertising to my memory did they state them as such. But the boxset did state: "All three classic films digitally restored and remastered". If I was an average Joe not into Star Wars buying the DVDs for someone else, I would interpret that statement as the original theatrical releases.

I wish there were laws requiring film companies to preserve and restore original versions of their movies that aired in theaters before making changes to them for "updated" media releases to the consumer public. I wish the law required them to include the original versions with updated versions using seamless branching. That would force them to restore the original version in equal quality to the updated versions because seamless branching only works when different versions are identical except for the changes.

I don't know what the typical size of an HD movie is, but you could also have the law requiring them to utilize the full capacity of the disk space for each movie so if there is not enough room for seamless branching require them to put them all on separate disks in equal quality. I wish the law also would require them to state what changes have been made etc.

doubleofive said:

 

 

About the bridge explosion, it is leaps and bounds better than what it was before Adywan, but don't you think an asteriod of that size would cause a bigger explosion than that? The clip cuts too abruptly to really see the full impact of the asteroid. I think the cut works the way it is, but would you be interested in enhancing the explosion even more and would it be possible for you to extend this clip a bit longer so we can see more destruction of the asteroid impact?

I saw both versions Skyjedi, I saw the American version on TV and I saw the Japanese version with no black and white during the fight scenes and more gore. I would say I might actually prefer the American version. I liked the black and white transitions during the fight scenes. That was some pretty impressive work at the end of the movie with Uma Thurman fighting the crazy 88. The camera stayed on the same shot for a lot longer than most movies during fight scenes. They must have had a shit ton of rehearsal to get those shots as good as they did.

So I come on here and find out I have 5 ignores including Moth3r. I wonder if this is the one that did it. I suppose I should have thought more before making this thread.

This was my favorite film of Quentin Tarantino's I've seen so far. I know the movie pays a lot of homage to the old samurai films as well as more recent ones like "crouching tiger hidden dragon" or whatever the hell that movie was called. I didn't see any of the samurai films but I could immediately tell this kind of material has been done before. I like how Kill Bill 1 is artistically driven, while Kill Bill 2 is character driven. A lot of people have suggested and made fan edits mixing the two together to make them feel more consistent, but I think they work better being independent of each other stylistically. I like how Tarantino played out the story with a lot of twists and turns. It could have gotten predictable and boring really quick, but they kept the material fresh until the end.

I was not a big fan of Tarantino's"Pulp Fiction" and "Reservoir Dogs". I'll admit I have never really sat through the entirety of either one of those movies, but they are just boring and confusing to me. Maybe one of you could help explain to me how those films are good? The first half of Pulp Fiction is completely different from the second half and I still haven't figured out the relevance. As far as Reservoir Dogs, I didn't find the first 10 minutes amusing and left the TV after that so I can't say much about that movie.

Emperor hologram looks great Adywan. Are you sure the lip-syncing is accurate? It seemed a bit off, but if that is the best you can do I am fine with that. So is this the final version, on facebook you said it was another rough draft, but on here you say it is the final version?

ChainsawAsh, I did the math wrong. $70 a week = $3654 a year x 4 1/2 years = $16,443, ouch.

Oh sweet, where do I download it?