- Post
- #245608
- Topic
- "BUT ANAMORPHIC ENHANCEMENT ALTERS THE MOVIES!!!"
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/245608/action/topic#245608
- Time
Go-Mer-Tonic
- User Group
- Members
- Join date
- 13-Sep-2006
- Last activity
- 28-Mar-2007
- Posts
- 928
Post History
- Post
- #245580
- Topic
- Waiting for Episode VII during the lean years (1984-1998)
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/245580/action/topic#245580
- Time
- Post
- #245568
- Topic
- "BUT ANAMORPHIC ENHANCEMENT ALTERS THE MOVIES!!!"
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/245568/action/topic#245568
- Time
- Post
- #245561
- Topic
- Waiting for Episode VII during the lean years (1984-1998)
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/245561/action/topic#245561
- Time
Did you look at the rotton tomatoes link?
I was just showing examples of reviews for the OT that sound suspiciously similar to the negative reviews you see for the PT.
- Post
- #245555
- Topic
- Waiting for Episode VII during the lean years (1984-1998)
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/245555/action/topic#245555
- Time
New York Times 1977:
"STAR WARS: A film with comic-book characters, an unbelievable story, no political or social commentary, lousy acting, preposterous dialogue, and a ridiculously simplistic morality. In other words, a BAD MOVIE." Here's another one for Empire:'The Empire Strikes Back' Strikes a Bland Note
By VINCENT CANBY
The Force is with us but let's try to keep our heads. These things are certifiable: "The Empire Strikes Back," George Lucas's sequel to his "Star Wars," the biggest grossing motion picture of all time, has opened. On the basis of the early receipts, "The Empire Strikes Back" could make more money than any other movie in history, except, maybe, "Star Wars." It is the second film in a projected series that may last longer than the civilization that produced it.
Confession: When I went to see "The Empire Strikes Back" I found myself glancing at my watch almost as often as I did when I was sitting through a truly terrible movie called "The Island."
The Empire Strikes Back" is not a truly terrible movie. It's a nice movie. It's not, by any means, as nice as "Star Wars." It's not as fresh and funny and surprising and witty, but it is nice and inoffensive and, in a way that no one associated with it need be ashamed of, it's also silly. Attending to it is a lot like reading the middle of a comic book. It is amusing in fitful patches but you're likely to find more beauty, suspense, discipline, craft and art when watching a New York harbor pilot bring the Queen Elizabeth 2 into her Hudson River berth, which is what "The Empire Strikes Back" most reminds me of. It's a big, expensive, time-consuming, essentially mechanical operation.
Gone from "The Empire Strikes Back" are those associations that so enchanted us in "Star Wars," reminders of everything from the Passion of Jesus and the stories of Beowulf and King Arthur to those of Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn, the Oz books, Buck Rogers and Peanuts. Strictly speaking, "The Empire Strikes Back" isn't even a complete narrative. It has no beginning or end, being simply another chapter in a serial that appears to be continuing not onward and upward but sideways. How, then, to review it?
The fact that I am here at this minute facing a reproachful typewriter and attempting to get a fix on "The Empire Strikes Back" is, perhaps, proof of something I've been suspecting for some time now. That is, that there is more nonsense being written, spoken and rumored about movies today than about any of the other so-called popular arts except rock music. The Force is with us, indeed, and a lot of it is hot air.
Ordinarily when one reviews a movie one attempts to tell a little something about the story. It's a measure of my mixed feelings about "The Empire Strikes Back" that I'm not at all sure that I understand the plot. That was actually one of the more charming conceits of "Star Wars," which began with a long, intensely complicated message about who was doing what to whom in the galactic confrontations we were about to witness and which, when we did see them, looked sort of like a game of neighborhood hide-and-seek at the Hayden Planetarium. One didn't worry about its politics. One only had to distinguish the good persons from the bad. This is pretty much the way one is supposed to feel about "The Empire Strikes Back," but one's impulse to know, to understand, cannot be arrested indefinitely without doing psychic damage or, worse, without risking boredom.
This much about "The Empire Strikes Back" I do understand: When the movie begins, Han Solo (Harrison Ford) and Princess Leia (Carrie Fisher) and their gang are hanging out on a cold, snowy planet where soldiers ride patrols on animals that look like ostrich-kangaroos, where there are white-furred animals that are not polar bears and where Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) almost freezes to death.
Under the command of Darth Vader, the forces of the Empire attack, employing planes, missiles and some awfully inefficient tanks that have the shape of armor-plated camels. Somehow Han Solo and Princess Leia escape. At that point Luke Skywalker flies off to find Yoda, a guru who will teach him more about the Force, Yoda being the successor to Ben (Obi-Wan) Kenobi (Alec Guinness), the "Star Wars" guru who was immolated in that movie but whose shade turns up from time to time in the new movie for what looks to have been about three weeks of work.
As Han Solo and Princess Leia wrestle with the forces of darkness and those of a new character played by Billy Dee Williams, an unreliable fellow who has future sainthood written all over him, Luke Skywalker finds his guru, Yoda, a small, delightful, Muppet-like troll created and operated by Frank Oz of the Muppet Show. Eventually these two stories come together for still another blazing display of special effects that, after approximately two hours, leave Han Solo, Leia and Luke no better off than they were at the beginning.
I'm not as bothered by the film's lack of resolution as I am about my suspicion that I really don't care. After one has one's fill of the special effects and after one identifies the source of the facetious banter that passes for wit between Han Solo and Leia (it's straight out of B-picture comedies of the 30's), there isn't a great deal for the eye or the mind to focus on. Ford, as cheerfully nondescript as one could wish a comic strip hero to be, and Miss Fisher, as sexlessly pretty as the base of a porcelain lamp, become (is it rude to say?) tiresome. One finally looks around them, even through them, at the decor. If Miss Fisher does much more of this sort of thing, she's going to wind up with the Vera Hruba Ralston Lifetime Achievement Award.
The other performers are no better or worse, being similarly limited by the not-super material. Hamill may one day become a real movie star, an identifiable personality, but right now it's difficult to remember what he looks like. Even the appeal of those immensely popular robots, C-3PO and R2-D2, starts to run out.
In this context it's no wonder that Oz's contribution, the rubbery little Yoda with the pointy ears and his old-man's frieze of wispy hair, is the hit of the movie. But even he can be taken only in small doses, possibly because the lines of wisdom he must speak sound as if they should be sung to a tune by Jimmy Van Heusen.
I'm also puzzled by the praise that some of my colleagues have heaped on the work of Irvin Kershner, whom Lucas, who directed "Star Wars" and who is the executive producer of this one, hired to direct "The Empire Strikes Back." Perhaps my colleagues have information denied to those of us who have to judge the movie by what is on the screen. Did Kershner oversee the screenplay, too? Did he do the special effects? After working tirelessly with Miss Fisher to get those special nuances of utter blandness, did he edit the film? Who, exactly, did what in this movie? I cannot tell, and even a certain knowledge of Kershner's past work ("Eyes of Laura Mars," "The Return of a Man Called Horse," "Loving") gives me no hints about the extent of his contributions to this movie. "The Empire Strikes Back" is about as personal as a Christmas card from a bank.
I assume that Lucas supervised the entire production and made the major decisions or, at least, approved of them. It looks like a movie that was directed at a distance. At this point the adventures of Luke, Leia and Han Solo appear to be a self-sustaining organism, beyond criticism except on a corporate level.
The -real- myth is that the prequels had a higher percentage of bad reviews: Critical Consensus: "STAR WARS: A film with comic-book characters, an unbelievable story, no political or social commentary, lousy acting, preposterous dialogue, and a ridiculously simplistic morality. In other words, a BAD MOVIE." Here's another one for Empire:'The Empire Strikes Back' Strikes a Bland Note
By VINCENT CANBY
The Force is with us but let's try to keep our heads. These things are certifiable: "The Empire Strikes Back," George Lucas's sequel to his "Star Wars," the biggest grossing motion picture of all time, has opened. On the basis of the early receipts, "The Empire Strikes Back" could make more money than any other movie in history, except, maybe, "Star Wars." It is the second film in a projected series that may last longer than the civilization that produced it.
Confession: When I went to see "The Empire Strikes Back" I found myself glancing at my watch almost as often as I did when I was sitting through a truly terrible movie called "The Island."
The Empire Strikes Back" is not a truly terrible movie. It's a nice movie. It's not, by any means, as nice as "Star Wars." It's not as fresh and funny and surprising and witty, but it is nice and inoffensive and, in a way that no one associated with it need be ashamed of, it's also silly. Attending to it is a lot like reading the middle of a comic book. It is amusing in fitful patches but you're likely to find more beauty, suspense, discipline, craft and art when watching a New York harbor pilot bring the Queen Elizabeth 2 into her Hudson River berth, which is what "The Empire Strikes Back" most reminds me of. It's a big, expensive, time-consuming, essentially mechanical operation.
Gone from "The Empire Strikes Back" are those associations that so enchanted us in "Star Wars," reminders of everything from the Passion of Jesus and the stories of Beowulf and King Arthur to those of Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn, the Oz books, Buck Rogers and Peanuts. Strictly speaking, "The Empire Strikes Back" isn't even a complete narrative. It has no beginning or end, being simply another chapter in a serial that appears to be continuing not onward and upward but sideways. How, then, to review it?
The fact that I am here at this minute facing a reproachful typewriter and attempting to get a fix on "The Empire Strikes Back" is, perhaps, proof of something I've been suspecting for some time now. That is, that there is more nonsense being written, spoken and rumored about movies today than about any of the other so-called popular arts except rock music. The Force is with us, indeed, and a lot of it is hot air.
Ordinarily when one reviews a movie one attempts to tell a little something about the story. It's a measure of my mixed feelings about "The Empire Strikes Back" that I'm not at all sure that I understand the plot. That was actually one of the more charming conceits of "Star Wars," which began with a long, intensely complicated message about who was doing what to whom in the galactic confrontations we were about to witness and which, when we did see them, looked sort of like a game of neighborhood hide-and-seek at the Hayden Planetarium. One didn't worry about its politics. One only had to distinguish the good persons from the bad. This is pretty much the way one is supposed to feel about "The Empire Strikes Back," but one's impulse to know, to understand, cannot be arrested indefinitely without doing psychic damage or, worse, without risking boredom.
This much about "The Empire Strikes Back" I do understand: When the movie begins, Han Solo (Harrison Ford) and Princess Leia (Carrie Fisher) and their gang are hanging out on a cold, snowy planet where soldiers ride patrols on animals that look like ostrich-kangaroos, where there are white-furred animals that are not polar bears and where Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) almost freezes to death.
Under the command of Darth Vader, the forces of the Empire attack, employing planes, missiles and some awfully inefficient tanks that have the shape of armor-plated camels. Somehow Han Solo and Princess Leia escape. At that point Luke Skywalker flies off to find Yoda, a guru who will teach him more about the Force, Yoda being the successor to Ben (Obi-Wan) Kenobi (Alec Guinness), the "Star Wars" guru who was immolated in that movie but whose shade turns up from time to time in the new movie for what looks to have been about three weeks of work.
As Han Solo and Princess Leia wrestle with the forces of darkness and those of a new character played by Billy Dee Williams, an unreliable fellow who has future sainthood written all over him, Luke Skywalker finds his guru, Yoda, a small, delightful, Muppet-like troll created and operated by Frank Oz of the Muppet Show. Eventually these two stories come together for still another blazing display of special effects that, after approximately two hours, leave Han Solo, Leia and Luke no better off than they were at the beginning.
I'm not as bothered by the film's lack of resolution as I am about my suspicion that I really don't care. After one has one's fill of the special effects and after one identifies the source of the facetious banter that passes for wit between Han Solo and Leia (it's straight out of B-picture comedies of the 30's), there isn't a great deal for the eye or the mind to focus on. Ford, as cheerfully nondescript as one could wish a comic strip hero to be, and Miss Fisher, as sexlessly pretty as the base of a porcelain lamp, become (is it rude to say?) tiresome. One finally looks around them, even through them, at the decor. If Miss Fisher does much more of this sort of thing, she's going to wind up with the Vera Hruba Ralston Lifetime Achievement Award.
The other performers are no better or worse, being similarly limited by the not-super material. Hamill may one day become a real movie star, an identifiable personality, but right now it's difficult to remember what he looks like. Even the appeal of those immensely popular robots, C-3PO and R2-D2, starts to run out.
In this context it's no wonder that Oz's contribution, the rubbery little Yoda with the pointy ears and his old-man's frieze of wispy hair, is the hit of the movie. But even he can be taken only in small doses, possibly because the lines of wisdom he must speak sound as if they should be sung to a tune by Jimmy Van Heusen.
I'm also puzzled by the praise that some of my colleagues have heaped on the work of Irvin Kershner, whom Lucas, who directed "Star Wars" and who is the executive producer of this one, hired to direct "The Empire Strikes Back." Perhaps my colleagues have information denied to those of us who have to judge the movie by what is on the screen. Did Kershner oversee the screenplay, too? Did he do the special effects? After working tirelessly with Miss Fisher to get those special nuances of utter blandness, did he edit the film? Who, exactly, did what in this movie? I cannot tell, and even a certain knowledge of Kershner's past work ("Eyes of Laura Mars," "The Return of a Man Called Horse," "Loving") gives me no hints about the extent of his contributions to this movie. "The Empire Strikes Back" is about as personal as a Christmas card from a bank.
I assume that Lucas supervised the entire production and made the major decisions or, at least, approved of them. It looks like a movie that was directed at a distance. At this point the adventures of Luke, Leia and Han Solo appear to be a self-sustaining organism, beyond criticism except on a corporate level.
"Star Wars" prequels actually better reviewed than the originals.
- Post
- #245525
- Topic
- Waiting for Episode VII during the lean years (1984-1998)
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/245525/action/topic#245525
- Time
- Post
- #245515
- Topic
- "BUT ANAMORPHIC ENHANCEMENT ALTERS THE MOVIES!!!"
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/245515/action/topic#245515
- Time
- Post
- #245490
- Topic
- Waiting for Episode VII during the lean years (1984-1998)
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/245490/action/topic#245490
- Time
- Post
- #245484
- Topic
- "BUT ANAMORPHIC ENHANCEMENT ALTERS THE MOVIES!!!"
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/245484/action/topic#245484
- Time
Originally posted by: Wesyeed
good grief, that PT lover Go-mer-whatever from TFN posts here too?
Yep. good grief, that PT lover Go-mer-whatever from TFN posts here too?
- Post
- #245481
- Topic
- Waiting for Episode VII during the lean years (1984-1998)
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/245481/action/topic#245481
- Time
All these complaints some have about lack of dimensionality in the characters, bad writing, horrible dialogue, overreliance on cutting edge effects at the expense of good storytelling, have been there since the first one was released back in '77.
It's just now we actually have some Star Wars fans who say that about the new ones.
- Post
- #245473
- Topic
- "BUT ANAMORPHIC ENHANCEMENT ALTERS THE MOVIES!!!"
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/245473/action/topic#245473
- Time
You are the one using terms like that.
That's a bit extremist of you don't you think?
- Post
- #245468
- Topic
- "BUT ANAMORPHIC ENHANCEMENT ALTERS THE MOVIES!!!"
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/245468/action/topic#245468
- Time
You guys have had Lucas all figured out for years now, and yet we still buy every version he puts out.
I hope you guys are right about Lucas just trying to get us to buy all the versions, because it would really suck if this was the last chance ("no really this time I -really- mean it"), and we missed it -again-.
- Post
- #245463
- Topic
- "BUT ANAMORPHIC ENHANCEMENT ALTERS THE MOVIES!!!"
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/245463/action/topic#245463
- Time
I can only accpet the O-OT on DVD if it is presented in Anamorphic format = Less laid back and casual.
- Post
- #245460
- Topic
- "BUT ANAMORPHIC ENHANCEMENT ALTERS THE MOVIES!!!"
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/245460/action/topic#245460
- Time
- Post
- #245438
- Topic
- "BUT ANAMORPHIC ENHANCEMENT ALTERS THE MOVIES!!!"
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/245438/action/topic#245438
- Time
Calling people who are happy to get the O-OT on DVD in any format "blind followers" or "religious extremists" just because they aren't nearly as anal retentive about what format it is delivered in as the rest of us is a bit on the ironic side no?
- Post
- #245176
- Topic
- This guy will not be buying the DVDs
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/245176/action/topic#245176
- Time
I think he should be grateful for the support, but it's not like we were buying stock in Lucasfilm. A lot of us who would want him to put more effort into a DVD transfer of the O-OT are by and large the same people who curse Lucas and his vision constantly. At a certain point I can see how his sense of gratitute could have been eroded over time.
- Post
- #245173
- Topic
- Try to take it easy with the Lucas bashing.
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/245173/action/topic#245173
- Time
Originally posted by: TheChozn1
Please note the one time "Gomer" and "reasonable" are put in the same sentence ^^^
GL is a businessman. I don't begrudge him for using the free market to line his pockets in the least. Yay capitalism...
On the other hand, I don't understand those who feel the need to protect him either. He's gonna die a billionaire all the same and thousands will line up to see his casket. He's gonna be just fine, trust me.
The man has brought almost a lifetime (so far) of joy into my life, protecting him from people who put him down all the time is the least I could do in return. I will always be grateful to Lucas for creating and maintaining Star Wars.Please note the one time "Gomer" and "reasonable" are put in the same sentence ^^^
GL is a businessman. I don't begrudge him for using the free market to line his pockets in the least. Yay capitalism...
On the other hand, I don't understand those who feel the need to protect him either. He's gonna die a billionaire all the same and thousands will line up to see his casket. He's gonna be just fine, trust me.
Also, I do feel bad for fans who didn't like much of what Lucas has done since the O-OT. Not that they are wrong in some way (taste is subjective), but just because I know they really would have liked to have enjoyed things more than they have. One of the reasons I think I ended up liking things as much as I have was due to me seeing other people's different points of view. I took a step back from the internet and realized that while every one of us had individual points of view, together, we loved and hated just about every second of the saga.
I went through a period of time where I really didn't like the Ewoks. But I got to TFN and found that there were other Star Wars fans who loved them. At first I found the idea preposterous, but when I read the reasons they loved them I saw what they were saying, it changed my mind, and now I enjoy ROTJ that much more because of it.
So as I seek out all the reasons to enjoy the Star Wars saga, I try to share them with others in case it happens to help.
I just figure, the movies are what the movies are. Enjoying them as much as we can is in our best interests as fans.
It's not like we are going to gain anything by not enjoying them.
That said, not everyone will enjoy them.
- Post
- #244911
- Topic
- This guy will not be buying the DVDs
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/244911/action/topic#244911
- Time
- Post
- #244909
- Topic
- Try to take it easy with the Lucas bashing.
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/244909/action/topic#244909
- Time
Originally posted by: MANDALORIAN
George Lucas is a liar and a fraud. He has released these films THREE times in 3 years. The greed of the man is astounding. He knows people like Gomer will lap up anything that Lucasfilm can defecate out into the market. Sure, but that doesn't make him a liar or a fraud. He knows Star Wars fans will want to buy it, which is why he does it. But it's not like we haven't been asking him for this particular release for years now.
Its all about the money.
Yes, people sell stuff to make money. It's not like he's got a gun at anyone's head, there is constant demand for it. If you don't think there's anything more to it than money, then maybe it's not worth buying into. George Lucas is a liar and a fraud. He has released these films THREE times in 3 years. The greed of the man is astounding. He knows people like Gomer will lap up anything that Lucasfilm can defecate out into the market. Sure, but that doesn't make him a liar or a fraud. He knows Star Wars fans will want to buy it, which is why he does it. But it's not like we haven't been asking him for this particular release for years now.
Originally posted by: MANDALORIAN
He says 100% that he will not release the O-OT, then he sees there is money to be made, so he goes back on that. Lucas is a business man. Do you really think he didn't see the money in releasing the O-OT on DVD until years after we made this pettition?
The man is a joke. He has destroyed his own legend for all but the weak-minded who need a hero to worship. A fluke 30 years ago does not a good filmmaker make. And the world has seen the truth.
A fluke? Dude, Star Wars is still one of the strongest franchises around, after a period where it had all but blinked out of existance for what was it like 10 years? Some of us didn't look at this as a fight between what Luas wanted and what "we" wanted. Some of us just sat back and let the man tell his story. I don't see why it makes me weak minded just because I want to enjoy these movies.Originally posted by: MANDALORIANHe says 100% that he will not release the O-OT, then he sees there is money to be made, so he goes back on that. Lucas is a business man. Do you really think he didn't see the money in releasing the O-OT on DVD until years after we made this pettition?
Originally posted by: MANDALORIAN
- which Gushers said he would never do because of his integrity and magical vision. But he doesn't want to do what EVERY OTHER filmmaker in the world would do and release the films straight out in good quality with good extras. No. He has to piss about - lie about the quality, force consumers to by the 2004 turds AGAIN in order to get the grainy originals. Well to him "good quailty" was the 2004 SE, and the Empire of Dreams is an award winning doccumentary, and can you prove he's lying about the quality?
Nobody is being forced to do anything. The reason he releases these films over and over is because they have constant demand. When the 2004 box set ran out of stock, he put out the 2005 set without the limited edition's bonus disc at a reduced price point. This particular release was initially meant for people who didn't want more than one or two of these movies, and didn't get the box set. Cue legions of fans just like us, relentlessly asking for the O-OT, and you have the bonus disc. I think if he were to have released these with just disc 2 on it, it would have probably cost about the same. What's really great is the SE disc is held on a detatchable wing so if you want you can just get rid of it.
As far as special features, that's what the rumored box set is about next year.
I am fed up of his lying, contradictions and complete cluelessness as to what made Star Wars great. I am fed up of him pretending to know what he is talking about by using words like "Motif", "Maguffin" and "vision".
It's his movie, he's the guy who knows what made Star Wars great (to him). I know not everyone else enjoys the full spectrum of Lucas' taste, but they are -his- movies.Originally posted by: MANDALORIAN- which Gushers said he would never do because of his integrity and magical vision. But he doesn't want to do what EVERY OTHER filmmaker in the world would do and release the films straight out in good quality with good extras. No. He has to piss about - lie about the quality, force consumers to by the 2004 turds AGAIN in order to get the grainy originals. Well to him "good quailty" was the 2004 SE, and the Empire of Dreams is an award winning doccumentary, and can you prove he's lying about the quality?
Nobody is being forced to do anything. The reason he releases these films over and over is because they have constant demand. When the 2004 box set ran out of stock, he put out the 2005 set without the limited edition's bonus disc at a reduced price point. This particular release was initially meant for people who didn't want more than one or two of these movies, and didn't get the box set. Cue legions of fans just like us, relentlessly asking for the O-OT, and you have the bonus disc. I think if he were to have released these with just disc 2 on it, it would have probably cost about the same. What's really great is the SE disc is held on a detatchable wing so if you want you can just get rid of it.
As far as special features, that's what the rumored box set is about next year.
Originally posted by: MANDALORIAN
A win-win. IF it sells he gets more money. If it doesn't he states that no-one wanted the originals and then releases the films next year with more changes and different covers. He's not looking at the sales of this release to tell him wether or not he should release these films next year with more changes. He's going to do that anyway. And yes if it sells he gets more money. That's how it works.Originally posted by: MANDALORIAN
Why can't he release the O-OT like any other movie is released. What is so difficult? If he prefers the cartoony, diluted, colour saturated crap of the SEs then he can watch them to his greedy hearts content.
He says the original negatives were permanantly altered in the creation of the SE, and all the existing prints are in poor quality.Originally posted by: MANDALORIANA win-win. IF it sells he gets more money. If it doesn't he states that no-one wanted the originals and then releases the films next year with more changes and different covers. He's not looking at the sales of this release to tell him wether or not he should release these films next year with more changes. He's going to do that anyway. And yes if it sells he gets more money. That's how it works.Originally posted by: MANDALORIAN
Why can't he release the O-OT like any other movie is released. What is so difficult? If he prefers the cartoony, diluted, colour saturated crap of the SEs then he can watch them to his greedy hearts content.
I am fed up of his lying, contradictions and complete cluelessness as to what made Star Wars great. I am fed up of him pretending to know what he is talking about by using words like "Motif", "Maguffin" and "vision".
The man is a joke. He has destroyed his own legend for all but the weak-minded who need a hero to worship. A fluke 30 years ago does not a good filmmaker make. And the world has seen the truth.
Its all about the money.
- Post
- #244806
- Topic
- This guy will not be buying the DVDs
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/244806/action/topic#244806
- Time
I have heard from a lot of people who say they know for sure he's lying and has all these pristine copies of the saga just laying around in his basement, but it seems like a whole lot of assumption to me.
I really think this is one case where the "dog ate my homework" isn't just a huge lie.
I think that's part of the reason he didn't originally entertain the idea of O-OT on DVD, because he knew the best he could do (without hiring Nasa to ressurect the original picture quality of the film from a bunch of worn out prints), was to use one of the previous home video release masters as he has. I don't think he wanted to put out a DVD with a movie on it that wasn't Anamorphic in this day and age. I could just picture Jim Ward begging him to just let them do it, and Lucas saying: I don't think they'd want what I can give them".
Now if it's really not a big deal, if there really is a print laying around that he could send to a lab for a day and be done with it, then I think it would be in poor taste for him to not do that.
Is there anything beyond speculation (or anonomous people who conveninently happen to know for a fact but can't reveal how they got the info without occupational rammifications), to say he's really lying about all of this?
- Post
- #244790
- Topic
- This guy will not be buying the DVDs
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/244790/action/topic#244790
- Time
Was it wrong when he re-dubbed Beru's voice? What if he had redubbed her voice before he released the film, would that make a difference?
My point here is that there were a lot of people who worked on a lot of stuff to bring these movies into reality. Along the way some of the stuff they came up with was discarded for various reasons (like the Luke/Friends on Tatooine scene for example).
Stuff like that happens all the time, to good honest artistic work in the process of making a movie. These artists were paid by Lucas, and that's why he gets to use what he wants and discard the rest for his final cut.
I see the point about the historic nature of these films and if it's really just a matter of pushing a button to make an anamorphic transfer happen, then I agree it would be selfish of him not to.
I'm just not ready to buy into the idea that he's lying about how difficult that would be.
I see people's points about potential motivation for lying here, but I think if he were really that adamant about it, he just wouldn't have released the O-OT again at all.
- Post
- #244779
- Topic
- This guy will not be buying the DVDs
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/244779/action/topic#244779
- Time
- Post
- #244774
- Topic
- This guy will not be buying the DVDs
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/244774/action/topic#244774
- Time
Originally posted by: Mike O
And the people who gave him millions of dollars to that he could even make the SEs? What about us? The fans? The ones who make the sequels, the prequels, the SEs, and everything else related to SW even possible? A restoration could be performed. Millions of people want it. There is a simple way to meet in the middle here. Release a proper restoration of the OOT. I'll buy it, and so will countless others. Then I have what I want, and Lucas can do whatever he wants to the SEs and the PT. (I don't hate them. Quite the contrary). Everybody's happy. Only Lucas won't do it. Robert A. Harris, the film restoration expert who restored Lawrence of Arabia and Vertigo, among others, volunteered, and Lucas wouldn't let him. Lucas just doesn't want to do this. I'm not bashing the guy or anything. I'm just stating a fact. And that, to my mind, after I've spent tons of money on his products, is insulting.
I am fully behind getting a new anamorphic transfer of the O-OT. I always felt it was a little selfish of Lucas to just sweep the O-OT under the rug the way he has. If it's just a matter of spending a little more to make it happen, then I agree Lucas should do that out of respect for the fans who really got behind these movies when they were first released.And the people who gave him millions of dollars to that he could even make the SEs? What about us? The fans? The ones who make the sequels, the prequels, the SEs, and everything else related to SW even possible? A restoration could be performed. Millions of people want it. There is a simple way to meet in the middle here. Release a proper restoration of the OOT. I'll buy it, and so will countless others. Then I have what I want, and Lucas can do whatever he wants to the SEs and the PT. (I don't hate them. Quite the contrary). Everybody's happy. Only Lucas won't do it. Robert A. Harris, the film restoration expert who restored Lawrence of Arabia and Vertigo, among others, volunteered, and Lucas wouldn't let him. Lucas just doesn't want to do this. I'm not bashing the guy or anything. I'm just stating a fact. And that, to my mind, after I've spent tons of money on his products, is insulting.
On the other hand, try to see it from his perspective. He was the one who put everything on the line to make the O-OT in the first place. Mortgaging his property, waiving his directorial fees, working himself into a nervous breakdown in an attempt to make the original Star Wars. The money we gave him for bringing ANH to the world wasn't really spent on the sequels, it was spent on the original film. He then took the money he made from that (the really freaking hard way) and put all of it back into ESB and his companies that helped him make it. When we bought into that movie, we weren't giving Lucas money to make ROTJ, we were giving him his invested money back plus profit because he gave us ESB. And so on and so forth. It seems to me like with each film in this series, Lucas brought the film to the table first, and we in turn rewarded him with our money and support. So it's not like he was ever really operating at a deficet with us.
Add to that the fact that not everyone who wasn't impressed with the SE/Prequels (the people who would want the O-OT on DVD the most) has been very polite about expressing themselves about it, and I don't think it's really that hard to understand his hesitation to spend more money on a group of people who tend to put him down all the time. To him, the money we spent in the past was for stuff he already gave us in the past.
While I think it would be nicer of him to come up with the new transfer, I really don't think he owes us that.
- Post
- #244731
- Topic
- POLL: So Who Bought Them & Who Didn't? (the 2006 GOUT DVD release)
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/244731/action/topic#244731
- Time
I thought the comic deal at Wal-Mart made up for re-buying the 2004 SE's, and overall aside from the fact the O-OT is not anamorphic, I think the picture quality is better than I had before on laserdisc. Certainly, not having to flip discs is almost worth the price of admission as far as I am concerned.
- Post
- #244707
- Topic
- First Impressions of the OOT ...
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/244707/action/topic#244707
- Time
