logo Sign In

JamesEightBitStar

User Group
Members
Join date
5-Mar-2004
Last activity
30-Sep-2008
Posts
187

Post History

Post
#100055
Topic
The Star Wars Saga DVD Box Set
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/100055/action/topic#100055
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: starkiller
Quote
Originally posted by: ThatArtGuy
Quote
Originally posted by: HotRod
All we need is a SW version of the Alien Box set, and everybody would be happy!
With better packaging though


My sentiments exactly!
Make it like the Japanese Alien 25th Anniversary Collection set...

or the Borg Mega Cube (all 7 seasons of TNG) released only in Europe...


No thanks. I prefer my DVDs to actually fit on my DVD shelf.

(this is why I didn't buy the original Battlestar Galactica boxed set, the one designed to look like a Cylon head).

Post
#99735
Topic
George Lucas on 60 Minutes.
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/99735/action/topic#99735
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: Hardcore Legend
Oh dear Lord. Your analogies fail because it is still his house. He can paint it neon pink and no one can make him do otherwise. Everyone in the neighborhood can call him up and tell him they liked it the old color, and it was better the old color, but as long as he can sleep at night with it neon pink, that's his own choice, it's his house.

I want the OT to be availible as it was seen originally. But my personal wants have nothing to do with what George Lucas can do as an artist. If he wants to repaint the mural, it's his choice, it's his painting. Providing an unaltered copy of the painting for the masses would be nice, but there is no burden upon him to do so.


Bullsh--

Let me give you a situation. Let's suppose you saved up money to buy a copy of Marvel vs. Capcom 2. You have a Playstation 2, so you are intent on getting that version. So you go to buy it--but for some reason, even though you find a store that has it in stock, they say you are not allowed to buy it. The reason is because this version is "no longer acknowledged" by the creators. They then tell you that if you still want the game at all, you must buy the X-Box version, because it is "definitive." It doesn't matter to these guys that you have the money to buy the Playstation 2 version, that they actually do have it in stock, or that you don't have an X-Box. You either buy "the definitive version" or you don't buy the game at all.

Fortunately, the above scenario itself hasn't happened yet (because Capcom is nowhere near as bad as George Lucas), however that's essentially what is happening here.

The "house" example does not work, because the house is for Lucas and his family and no one else. Lucas did not make Star Wars for himself, he made it for an audience. What Lucas is doing is nigh-on being a dictator, telling us precisely WHAT we're allowed to watch or spend our hard-earned money on.

I mean, by that logic, I'm not allowed to complain about how greasy and unhealthy a McDonald's burger is because "it's their burger, they can make it however they want." Yea, they're making it, but they're not the ones who are gonna have that burger running down their digestive system, and they're not the ones shelling out money to buy those burgers--the customer is.

When you support George Lucas' changes, you're essentially saying that big rich guys are allowed to control what we can see and hear. From there, they start dicking the customer around, telling them what they are and aren't allowed to buy and treating them more and more like crap, and taking this high and mighty "you should be thankful you have Star Wars at all, you swine!" stance. At this rate, George Lucas could release a Star Wars Trilogy boxed set that is nothing but blank discs and claim it's his "original vision," and there would still be people defending that as being perfectly moral and ethical and saying we should "be thankful" he released Star Wars on DVD at all.

REALITY CHECK! We're not Oliver, starving at a sweathouse and requesting more to eat (and even if we were, that scene was played up to show how inhumane such establishments were). We're customers who work hard and earn the money, and it is our decision and OURS ALONE what we choose to spend it on. If Lucas isn't going to give me the Star Wars I want, then I would rather live with just my VHS copies--and if Georgey boy hasn't released the version I like by the time those tapes degrade, then I can just live without Star Wars. It'll be a big loss, but I'd rather accept that loss than let some guy I don't even know make me his bitch.
Post
#95096
Topic
I'm sorry, but I must say this... screw this forum, and screw the entertainment industry
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/95096/action/topic#95096
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: Klingon_Jedi
James, while some of your points are valid, your phrasing certainly didn't help. I haven't seen such a hostle thread in some time. Is it wrong for someone to like something you find inferior? I'm a huge anime fan and there's this one anime I really disliked called Hellsing. It and the company that made it, Gonzo, are very popular at the moment. While I disagree on the quality of the show and the work of the studio itself, I sure as hell don't belittle the people that like it. People have different tastes. What sells nowadays may not match up with what one thinks should. Heck, you guys like Zelda, where I have no desire to touch any of it, as I don't particularly enjoy it. I have no problem with story-heavy RPGs, it's why I play them. While I hate the SEs and don't own the DVD, I still enjoy the EU, and don't mind the prequels. I don't mind people like Darth Chaltab who prefer the SE as long as they don't mind that I don't. That's all I ask.I grew up with the OOT, hence I'll always enjoy them more than the PT. I will admit, it can be frustrating to see people rave about something you think doesn't deserve it (like me and Gonzo) but in the end, you're going to live a very misarable life if you let it get to you like this.



The thing is, I'm not talking about people liking stuff I hate. My original post was about how stuff I like keeps getting effed with, and then people take this altered version and try to make it seem like a definitive edition--or at the very least, they support it, which raises the chances that other things I like will be tarnished in a similar manner. It also raises the chance that the new version will become the "definitive" version, and will lower the chance of the original both being released and being accepted. There's already a case in point of this: The movie "Bedazzled." The original 1968 version has not been released on DVD. The reason? Supposedly, because the company that owns the rights does not want it to compete with the remake that stars Brendon Fraiser.

Let's not forget Star Wars. As someone else noticed, the point of this petition and this forum is that the original version needs to be released on DVD. But how do you expect to accomplish that while at the same time supporting the new version? That's completely counter-productive. You're saying you want the old one, but your words have no weight because you are also saying you're willing to live with the new version. So Lucas gets to release his version of Star Wars, one which nearly everyone agrees is an inferior film.

Now, about Hellsing and Gonzo, yes they're popular. But do you ever meet people who tell you that if you don't like Hellsing, that you shouldn't be watching anime because "all anime is like Hellsing?"

I have in fact had this happen. I don't like it when anime is over-dependant on having huge explosions or how a lot of anime fight scenes tend to boil down to showing off a Street Fighter-esque special move as opposed to any real battle rythm or strategy. These complaints tend to be focused specifically on one subset of anime (Shonen, in particular), yet people act like I'm attacking the medium as a whole and tell me that I simply should not watch anime if I don't like certain cliches. I have had a similar instance happen in RPGs--in that genre, I look for gameplay just as much (often more) than I do storylines. I have played and enjoyed more than seventy RPGs across five consoles and a PC, yet because of my "gameplay is just as important as storyline" attitude, people assume that I know nothing about the genre or that I'm relatively new to it, and tell me I should not be playing RPGs. It's not so much the shows and games themselves I'm attacking as it is how they change people's (and the industry's) perceptions of those things, which in my experience results in lower standards, less willingness to experiment, and closed-minded points of view.

Oh, and to Shimraa: You can't just make a declaration and expect everyone to automatically listen unless you're a leader of some sort. Declaring that the thread is dead won't make it so. The thread dies when people involved run out of stuff to say, and that INCLUDES people who wish to constantly declare that the thread is "dead" because every time you say that, you're paradoxilly keeping the thread alive in your own small way.
Post
#94273
Topic
I'm sorry, but I must say this... screw this forum, and screw the entertainment industry
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/94273/action/topic#94273
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: Shimraa
Quote
Street Fighter II and Street Fighter III were made at different times. Am I not allowed to compare them and say one is better than the other?

your not quite understanding what i am saying. its the same idea as comparing hockey players, you cant say a hockey that plays today and gets 50 goals isnt as good if not better then a player that got 70 goals in the 80s, why because it was easier to score back then.


... How? Excuse me for not keeping up with scores, but what, did the rules of Hockey change or something? If not, I would definitely say someone who scored 70 goals in the eighties is better than someone who scored fifty today. By the same token, someone who scores 100 goals today is easily better than someone who scored 70 in the eighties. It's just common sense.

Quote
Quote
Sure we do. The film he released is a good indication of what we would've gotten had he been able to make a full film.

i feel differently. why because the being of the book is the easiest part to adapt. it the later parts that get harder. you can't say one way was better then the other cause they were just two ways of doing the same thing. but you feel differently obviousely so just agree the disagree, and dont come on this site and blame us for the problem.


What I blame this forum for is saying they want Lucas to stop butchering Star Wars, and then going out and supporting his butchery.
Post
#94081
Topic
I'm sorry, but I must say this... screw this forum, and screw the entertainment industry
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/94081/action/topic#94081
Time
I know you said post in Off-Topic, but they're right... this thread is dead. After this post, I won't have anything more to say.

Quote
Originally posted by: Shimraa

your right you can compare them however you cant say one is better then the other because they were done in different times.


Street Fighter II and Street Fighter III were made at different times. Am I not allowed to compare them and say one is better than the other?

While we're at it, Goldfinger and Tomorow Never Dies were made at different times too, so how come I'm not allowed to compare them? That seems rediculous to me--they're both in the same series, after all.

Or, how about a relevant example--according to you, I'm not allowed to compare the Original Trilogy to the Prequel Trilogy, because they were made in different times with different mindsets. Yea, they were... that's a large part of the reason people didn't like the PT and they're almost universally considered not as good as the OT.

It all comes down to quality. Everything else is irrelevent.

Quote
But the bottem line as i said before is that bakshi's version wasnt complete. so we don't know how good/bad of a adaption it could have been.


Sure we do. The film he released is a good indication of what we would've gotten had he been able to make a full film.
Post
#94035
Topic
I'm sorry, but I must say this... screw this forum, and screw the entertainment industry
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/94035/action/topic#94035
Time
Before I continue, let me say this:

I first saw Star Wars when I was fifteen. I saw it on some cable channel. I don't "hold it dear," I DO however respect it the same way an art lover respects the Mona Lisa. If someone wanted to repaint the Mona Lisa so that it now resembled an anime girl, would all of you be perfectly kosher with that?

Quote
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
Oracle of Ages was great. I've never quite finished Seasons because I got stuck. Meh, but Ages was far from the worst instalments. *Shrugs* to each his own I guess. If you hate puzzles,


For future reference, I'm a King's Quest fan, so I obviously don't hate puzzles.

Then again, I don't consider "push block into proper place" to be much of a puzzle, either.

Quote
If you haven't noticed, nearly ever video game boss is pattern centric, even the ones in the first Zelda. Enemies didn't have AI back then, they had patterns and part of the challenge was cracking them.


Yes, but the pattern had more random and varied elements--the Gohma had to be shot in the eye, true, but you never knew how many fireballs from those statues would be flying at you when the eye was open, so it's possible to miss the deadline because you had to avoid getting hit. Contrast that to OOT, where you have to be a hopeless scrub to fail at defeating Gohma.

Quote
Granted the bomb is usless as a weapon, but it's not intended to be one. It's a device to open doors that happens to be lethal, not a rocket launcher. What do you have against swords anyway?


Nothing. I do have something against a lack of variety, however. The bomb may not have been intended as a weapon, but that it could be used as one does a lot to make the game more entertaining.

I once had a situation where I took out two octoroks with one bomb... and I was in a position with little manueverability, one of those classic "looks like there's no way out" situations. It was a relief I even managed to escape the blast radius of the bomb (much less get some heart refills out of the exchange). It sounds tame describing it, but in the game it was a very tense moment... the kind I have never felt in a later Zelda game.

Quote
In the first Zelda, pretty much all you could to was attack straight on(no matter what weapon, they were all direct),


Nope. Bomb was not direct--it could be layed anywhere and damaged anything in a set proximity. and the Boomerang could be thrown all across the room and even diagonally.

Quote
and once you got behind or beside an enemy, there was no more strategy than that.


Unless, of course, they turned around. Let's also not forget that you usually faced multiple foes at a time, and usually in varied groups--it's much harder to slash slash slash away at a Moblin or Wizzrobe when there's an annoying Like Like sneaking up on you.

Quote
No blocking,


There was blocking, it was just done automatically (the shield would automatically deflect projectiles, assuming they hit the shield and not Link's sprite).

Quote
Granted it all of LoZ worked for '87, when it was fresh and new, but not today. That's why the re-release for the GBA got mostly middling reviews.


It got mostly middling reviews because the reviewers would rather oggle over the FMV of the next Final Fantasy game than play an actual game. I haven't read the LoZ reviews in particular, but I have read ones for the GBA Rerelease of Metroid. They tended to be pathetic, predictable crap about how "badly designed" the game was because, you know, you had to find secret passages and stuff. Yea, it worked fifteen years ago, and doesn't work now. That's because gamers weren't scrubs fifteen years ago.

Then again, those are the same reviewers who need a walkthrough to beat Dragon Warrior (even though the game tells you what to do if you bother to talk to the townspeople).

Quote
There are plenty of good games and shows out there even if you don't like the direction old franchises are taking. My point is if you hate it, then stop complaining and try something else. Don't say "Screw this forum" as if we're the problem.


Actually, I said "screw this forum" because everyone here agrees there is a problem, yet pussyfoots on doing anything about it.

Remember when everyone suggested boycotting the DVDs? Remember when most of those people caved in and bought the DVDs anyway? By caving in, they basically stated that Star Wars was nothing more than a product to them, and that George Lucas can dick us around if he wants--if he made a version of SW where every character was an Ewok, people would threaten to boycott it and then buy it too. By extension, the rest of the entertainment industry has also gotten the idea that they can dick us around.

Did you know Sony recently tried to defend a hardware defect by claiming it was an artistic decision? The precedent was set by Lucas (except in his case it was a software defect), who so far has gotten away with it. The fans have to let the higher-ups dick them around before the higher ups can get away with it.

People treat the corperations like they're some unbeatable monster. They're not. They're buildings with a name. In those buildings are flesh and blood people, just like you and me. They have families and friends, loves and losses. They're not supermen. If you prick them, they bleed and file a lawsuit, just like you would do. They have no more power than what you give them.

You call me a pessimist. Why shouldn't I be, in a world where the complainer gets attacked instead of the object of his complaints? You said it yourself--instead of complaining about someone selling rotten tomatoes, I should just buy something else. Why? If enough people knew about the rotten tomatoes, the guy selling them would either have to shape up or go out of business.

That people think it's lifeless of me to care about entertainment is really kind of sad. Come on, what does the average adult do on weekdays? He (or she--I'm not sexist, but the English language is) works. He works for money. He needs money to buy stuff. Half of that stuff (unless he's really scraping for cash) is going to be entertainment. The intention of entertainment is quite obvious. Seriously, I don't see why people degrade it's role--without entertainment, all you have left is to work, eat, sleep, work, repeat until you die. Yes, there's other things to do besides watching movies, playing video games, and reading books. I admit, I do enjoy occasional walks, playing with my cats, or throwing frisbees for my dog, and no video game or movie scenery will ever beat mother nature. But everything loses it's appeal with over-exposure. I could joyride with my friends, and sometimes I do, but that wastes gas which in turn wastes money and sometimes you need to be practical about that. Besides that, most of the outdoor activity I enjoy is really season-specific. You can't swim in winter, and the fair only comes once a year (and I usually miss it). So what's left?

Movies, books, and games.

Yea, I could just stick to older movies and the stuff I prefer, but again that is like the man who sells rotten tomatoes--keeping quiet just lets the problem get worse. You let the market get over-saturated with bad tomatoes, and people won't be able to tell the bad from the good anymore. You let the entertainment industry dick you around, and soon we'll all be having televisions that don't work... and everyone will be saying it's an "artistic decision."

.... You know, there's nothing scarier th
Post
#94031
Topic
I'm sorry, but I must say this... screw this forum, and screw the entertainment industry
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/94031/action/topic#94031
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: Shimraa

Quote
WTF that is the kinda short sight idoit comment that i would expect from an individual like you.


And this is the kind of response I would expect from someone who is illiterate.

Quote
why the f*ck would you give a baby crap, and secondly what the f*ck does that have to do with a TV show. seriously man if you are try to compare the too think of something a lil more accurate. I understand that you frustrated with media nowadays but if you want to be takin seriously use a better comparison.


You were trying to argue that I only thought the new Star Wars movies sucked because "my perception has changed" and that kids who hadn't seen the original movies still liked it. I used the crap-eating comparison to try and show you that the case may very well be that since they haven't seen the originals, they don't have a basis for comparison.

I'm sure you're the only one who didn't understand the reasoning behind that.

Quote
Wow so your telling me that you havent grown up since you were ten,


Perhaps not, but I do a much better job of hiding it than you.

Quote
you preception changes as you grow older, its just a fact,


Just like "Four legs good, two legs bad" I'll wager.


Quote
you are a different person now then you were when you were ten, why cus people change. wow you played all the zelda back to back man you need to get out more, thats alot of game play. and as for Starwars, you'll you will never beable to watch the PT movies from the POV that you watched the originals, the reason why you still like the originals is cus they captured your attention when you were little. the PT will never do that cus you watched the for the first time after you had matured.


They'll never capture my imagination because they sucked.

Seriously, I guess this "change of perception" stuff also explains why I don't like Starship Troopers or the theatrical Lost in Space movie either, right?

And maturity has nothing to do with one's tastes in entertainment, unless of course your one of those pussies who had to play with G.I. Joes in the closet because people would give you a wedgie if you actually admitted to liking them in public.

Quote
well lets see i have read the book once a year since i was hmm 10. i have done projects on the book, for school i have done biographies on tolkien, i know the boks inside out. that what i base my assertion on. as for ralph Bakshi's version, yes i personally liked it, however all the stuff he did with the orcs the half cartoon half constume shit was stupid, also not finishing is a big indicator on how good some people thought the movie was.


I agreed with you up until the last comment. Bakshi had tried to fit the entire trilogy into one movie, but the studio crapped out on him and forced him to release it in incomplete form--this also explains some of the live action/animation mix. Just compare the animation quality to one of his finished films, such as Wizards, and you'll see what LOTR could've been.

Quote
and dont tell me that it did a good job of portraying the books, because he never finished the hard part of it. the fellowship and the first half of TTT are the easiest parts to adopt from the book cus there is lots of imagery. but ROTK had alot of events that happen quickly and close together, that dont take much time in the book but take alot of time in the movies. But man you can't compare his version to PJs version why cus they were made in different times, by different people, in different mediums, and with different bugets.


But they're both adaptations of the same book. Saying I can't compare them is like saying I can't compare Street Fighter II to Street Fighter III.

Quote
i was accounting for that man but your right it wouldnt be 30 hrs long a direct tranlation of the books into a movie would be at least 15hrs.


Considering that the extended versions of the PJ films run for something like nine hours altogether, I think I could've put up with some extra material. I still don't think that estimate is correct, however.

Quote
you cannot expect people to go and see a 15 hr movie,


Of course not. That's why the theatrical versions were severely shortened.

Quote
mm. abysmal revivals yeah so thats why lotr gross over a billion dollars, and made history but winning so many awards, that is why spiderman is a good movie right, or why shows like beasties were good, yeah man that is why these revivals are failures.


Yes, let's not overlook the new He-Man (which lasted two seasons then bombed), or the OTHER Transformers shows, such as R.I.D. (though in truth, Transformers doesn't really count as a "Revival" because to revive, you have to be DEAD first, and Transformers never really died--it's just one of those franchises that won't go away. Spider-Man is in this boat too, actually).

Quote
are a very shortsight and selfish individual, if entertaining the youth of today is the raping of your childhood, then so be it. man i feel like beating the shit out of you for being so selfish.


The youth of today have their own shows. They don't need to be making custom versions of my heroes. I mean, I'm sure they wouldn't like it if I made an 80s-style version of Yu-Gi-Oh.

Post
#94001
Topic
I'm sorry, but I must say this... screw this forum, and screw the entertainment industry
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/94001/action/topic#94001
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
I was unaware of this... I figured it was revived for nostalgia's sake.


He-Man is considered one of the classics of the 80s, along with Transformers and G.I. Joe and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Granted there are those who argue that the 1980s in general sucked, but to me that's as rediculous as claiming all classic literature sucks.

Quote
My claim still stands. He-man couldn't succede today even with a good show in that sort of fetish garb.


Who wants He-Man to succeed today? He-Man is a product of the eighties. While bringing back old heroes can give good results (Fox's Peter Pan and the Pirates), this over-dependancy on bringing back characters from the 1980s is disturbing. The entertainment industry should make new heroes, not try to breath new life into old ones.

Seriously, hasn't anyone but me read "Frankenstein"?

Quote
Did we play the same AlttP?


Mine was for the Super Nintendo. Yours?

Quote
Even with the cracks in the walls, the game is harder than most games released today.
I'll agree that the sword beam is weak, but it is much easier to hit your target than it was in LoZ.


Can't say I ever had a problem hitting people with the original beam, so I wouldn't know.

Quote
I think that's a fair trade. Besides, Even if you weren't a fan of Ocarina of Time's excellent battle system, the Oracle games Were great, and as I said, superiour to OoT IMHO.


Personally, I don't consider "Hit, block, wait for an opening, hit again, and then use this same general strategy on 98% of all enemies in the game" to be fun. And just to say this now... I personally consider the Gameboy installments of the Zelda series to be the worst ones (not counting the CD-i ones, which I've never played).

Most of the reason I liked the first Zelda was because of how many ways you could approach enemies--with your sword, with your bow, with your bomb, etc. I've honestly had situations where I was surrounded and used all sorts of desperate measures. In LttP, it seems like only the sword is good as a practical weapon. Everything else tended to be used more for solving puzzles than fighting, and some items (such as the bomb) were modified to the point that they were now USELESS as weapons--by the time that stupid bomb went off, whoever you were trying to blow up is all the way across the screen. In general the side-weapons are only useful if they're an enemy's specific weakness. Don't get me started on how the boss battles became hopelessly pattern-centric...

Quote
That doesn't change the fact that all I hear is complaining about the "rape" of our childhood. I'm quite sick of it, too.


I'm sick of hearing people complain about rotten tomatoes. Should they stop complaining, or should the farmer growing said tomatoes start selling them fresh?

Quote
It's a figure of speach dude; and I meant get out of the house and mellow out. But yeah, I'm sure mellowing out would make you realize that the Lord of the Rings movies, especially the first one, are great movies, that the new Zelda games have very little sucking (Except Minish Cap and it's awesome Gust Jar. Gotta love the Gust Jar.)


Heh. I recently got Minish Cap from a friend of mine. He outright gave it to me simply because he couldn't stand it anymore, and told me as much himself. That sure gives me a boost of confidence -__- (I haven't played it yet, by the way).

It also doesn't help knowing what "Minish" would spell if you put a "De" in front of it and an "Ed" behind it.
Post
#93994
Topic
I'm sorry, but I must say this... screw this forum, and screw the entertainment industry
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/93994/action/topic#93994
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
He stated a strangely unshared opinion as fact. I just made the point that because from his post James is obvioulsy disgusted by the unfaithful ness of Lord of the Rings and the mysterious lack of fun he found in all but the two of the worst Zelda games. (I enjoy LoZ and AoL, but the fact remains they are archaicly outdated by today's standards)... I figured that mellowing out would make some of his hate for the direction these franchises took go away.


1. "Today's Standards" is little more than a cruel joke when applied to games. There are good games and bad games. There are not "Games that were good then, but suck now."

Would you say that The Three Stooges are "outdated by today's standards?" Would you use that phrase to describe Gone With the Wind? Citizen Kane? Star Wars? Would you use it to describe Sherlock Holmes novels?

No? So why would you use it to describe video games?

Besides that, often "Today's standards" are worse. "Today's Standards" are where RPGs are more about their storyline than their gameplay (just compare Might & Magic to Final Fantasy X and you'll see what I mean) and people will think you know nothing about the genre for trying to advocate that it should be otherwise (even though I've played more RPGs than the people I argue with have). "Today's Standards" are where the GTA games are considered great because they allow you "absolute freedom".... even though they really don't, and in fact are horribly limited in terms of what you can do.

2. As for unfaithfulness, it wasn't just that... I could mind them being unfaithful if they had created a good product as well--after all, I'm a fan of "Hook," and that movie contradicts James Barrie's original Peter Pan novel in several very major respects. The problem with LOTR was not only that it was unfaithful, but many of the changes were stupid, pointless, and overall detracted from the film. The romance scenes between Aragorn and Arwen, for example. Yes, I know they're supposed to be in love, but did the romance have to be so cliched and stock-hollywood? This isn't Tolkien or Middle-earth, this is just stock. And why do so many of the battle scenes seem like they came right out of an episode of Hercules: The Legendary Journeys? Why are so many parts of the first movie so tongue-in-cheek in a story that's supposed to be of an overall more serious tone?

The scene at Weathertop is one such example--this is a scene that should've been very suspenseful. Instead we have the "terrifying" ringwraiths screaming like little girls, getting burned, and falling off cliffs all so Aragorn can look bad-ass. But... the Ringwraiths are supposed to be the most powerful servants Sauron controls. If all nine of his most powerful servants are beaten easily by ONE GUY, and Sauron himself looks like a reject from Power Rangers, how am I supposed to take the entire conflict seriously? Especially when Legolas is also portrayed as a superhero, and Gimli is always making every situation so lighthearted? Mind you, I don't mind lightheartedness, but it just doesn't fit in these films, at least not in the manner it was handled.

The worst offender was that Peter Jackson didn't know anything about "subtlety." Seriously, he's worse than Lucas in this regard--we can't figure out for ourselves that Frodo's becoming a slave of the ring, he has to actually turn into Gollum for a brief moment! And he can't show the deepening conflict between loyal Sam and a Frodo who is slowly being corrupted just by their actions and emotions--Sam has to get the point across by saying "Screw you Frodo, I'm going home."

Seriously, if I hadn't have read the books and seen Bakshi's film first, I probably wouldn't have been interested after seeing these movies. And unfortunately the LOTR movies are probably going to become the defining image of LOTR now, just like how the Conan movies became the defining image of Conan.
Post
#93966
Topic
I'm sorry, but I must say this... screw this forum, and screw the entertainment industry
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/93966/action/topic#93966
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab

What does this forum have to do with the entertainment industry as a whole?


What pissed me off here is how many people don't like what Lucas does to his movies yet still feel compelled to buy the DVDs, books, and see episode three. Many of them outright admitted this in other threads.

Quote
1.What changes has Jackson "raped" into the LotR Movies. I was unaware that there were any different versions, just extended editions on DVD...


Dude, what I meant was there's so many mindless sheep who go around pretending that these are somehow faithful adaptations of the books, when really they are not. In all honesty I don't see how you didn't understand that.

Quote
2.He-man has allways sucked. Nobody wants to watch a blonde guy in fetish garb fight evil


That's why the character has been popular for over two decades, right?

Quote
3.You say "increasing worse" as if Zelda sucked to begin with.


Oh, my mistake--the first two were amazing. Personally I never agreed with the consensus that LttP was such a Godly game, I mean it pussified a lot of aspects that made the original fun (stuff that is supposed to be secret is now clearly pointed out via gimmicks such as cracks in the wall. there is no longer any reason to keep yourself at full health because the sword beam is pathetically weak, etc). Don't even get me started on OOT... the lather-rinse-repeat battles did that one in for me.

And yes, I played both back when they were new. I didn't like them then, and my perception hadn't changed when I played them both again quite recently.

Quote
Actually all I hear is people complaining. I've not heard one word of praise for the new He-man show,


Dude, the show may not have been a complete success but it does have a cult popularity. In fact the He-Man.org forums added a section dedicated wholly to the new show. Just go there and say "The old show was better" and you'll see some praise for the new show flyin'.

Quote
Maybe you need to get out more...


I've heard this one, but I don't get it--what, would hanging around in the outside world more than I already do somehow make me magically realize that Lord of the Rings were actually good movies? If I hung around in the outside world more often, would I magically realize that the new Zelda games don't suck? There is no logic there! No matter what else I do, I'm still going to come home and play good games and bad games side by side, and be able to tell the difference between the cream and the crap.
Post
#93959
Topic
I'm sorry, but I must say this... screw this forum, and screw the entertainment industry
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/93959/action/topic#93959
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: Shimraa
OMG i really cannot believe some people i swear. Change is a good thing, you want to know the real reason why the PTs movies and of the new reamkes are not good in your eyes, it one reason only: you hav changed that is why you dont like it, your personalities are different and so when you see things you interpet them differently. that is why, go find a kid the same age as you when the first SW movies came out and ask him what he thought of the PTs. same goes with many of the other remakes that are coming out.


Hey, find a newborn baby and ask him to eat crap, and see if he agrees that it's crap. If the newborn baby decides he likes eating crap, that must mean the baby is right and that my perception of food has changed, right?

No offense man, but the "your perception has changed" is the biggest hunk of complete bull I've ever heard. I watch the old and new Star Wars movies back to back--there is a huge and definite difference in terms of storytelling style. I play the old Zeldas and the new Zeldas back to back. There are HUGE differences in the gameplay. The games didn't just re-write themselves magically to fit my "perceptions."

Quote
and MAN i am a lotr king, i worship those book and i find it offensive when you say that they were butchered. sure they weren't as good as the books but you cant make those books directly into movies its impossible, you'd get a 30 hour movie.


And what, exactly, do you base this on? Ralph Bakshi did an LOTR movie that was more-or-less an accurate adaptation. Granted, his only covers up to the Battle of Helm's Deep (he ran out of money before he could finish it) but it told the story (and told it well, in my opinion) in about the same length of time it takes to watch Peter Jackson's first LOTR movie.

Secondly, most of the reason the books are so long is because of Tolkien's detailed descriptions, and because of dialogue. In a visual medium, the length of both would be drastically reduced--after all, it's much quicker to SHOW people a vivid landscape than it is to tell them about it, and generally when you hear people actually talking, it's much faster than reading them on a page.

There is, simply put, no basis for the "it would've been a 30 hour movie" claim.

Quote
you really need to get out more too, the entertainment industry is not butchering your childhood, they are remaking in way so that it is liked by the kids today.


That's why many of these revivals are abysmal failures, right?

Besides that, "butchering my childhood" and "making the shows I like so they appeal to kids of today" are pretty much the same thing, just one is saying it in a sugar-coated way.
Post
#93800
Topic
I'm sorry, but I must say this... screw this forum, and screw the entertainment industry
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/93800/action/topic#93800
Time

…Screw this forum.

Okay, let me make this clear: I’m tired of being jacked around by the entertainment industry. It’s not just George Lucas anymore. It’s Peter Jackson raping Lord of the Rings while at the same time glorifying how “close” he was to “Tolkien’s spirit.” It’s some new company making a crappy-ass version of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe for Cartoon Network (a version which thankfully bombed). It’s Nintendo putting out more and more Legend of Zelda games that get increasingly worse.

The worst part of all is that every time this happens, there’s always people who will turn around and try to pretend that raping our cultural heritage and our childhood is somehow a GOOD thing.

The new show “Loonatics”–a superhero version of Looney Tunes–is yet another way the entertainment industry is dicking with us. Right now there are a lot of people who are talking about how much it will suck. What do you want to bet that those exact same people will turn around and praise it on release, even going so far as to try and claim it’s somehow better than what it’s based on? JUST LIKE how some people on this very forum knew the Star Wars DVDs were going to suck but went ahead and bought them anyway.

Screw this, and screw the entertainment industry. Thankfully most of the stuff I love is available on DVD in unbutchered form, and I can live without the stuff that isn’t–including Star Wars.

I think I’m going to go watch Transformers: The Movie and remember what “Entertainment” used to mean…

Post
#90608
Topic
A response to the "They're His Movies" arguement
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/90608/action/topic#90608
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: SerVente
he invented Star Wars for god sake

sure its part of pop culture now that he shared it with the world... but ultimatly its his stuff... he doesnt have an obligation to make fans happy...

he doesnt owe you nothing...


I'm sorry, but no. There is a lot more to this than just "pop culture."

The problem with "they're his movies, so he can do what he wants" is that it implies that WE are under an obligation to accept his product. I'm sorry, but no... I'm tried for cash at practically every period of my life. Saying that I should fork over fifty bucks for a version of Star Wars I don't want, is like telling a vegetarian that they have to either eat meat or starve.

The farmer is the one that grows the tomatoes. Does that mean he's perfectly within his right to sell rotten tomatoes? Does that mean that we should fork over the asking price for his tomatoes even though we KNOW they're rotten?

It's his movies, yea... but it's MY cash, so I can do what I want with it. Call me a selfish prick if you want, but when you have to bust your ass off every day just trying to make a meager $500 a month (or so), you're entitled to a little bit of pickyness. I'm also not inclined to let other people think they can control me, and particularly think they can control what I am and am not allowed to purchase with my hard-earned money.

Wow, so Lucas only wants to put out his own personal version of Star Wars on DVD. So I have to fork over the fifty, right?

Hell with it, there are better things than Star Wars.
Post
#90601
Topic
A response to the "They're His Movies" arguement
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/90601/action/topic#90601
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: oojason
^ Translating it itself would have been difficult, and then translating it into differing languages through two different eras - say 100 years apart may well give you a different book, as well as any political or power games played by those involved.


Actually, I once read an article that mentioned that the Bible is one of the most accurately translated books in the world--practically every translation is 99.5% accurate, and they all get the same points, morals, and stories across.

Granted, I don't know Greek or Hebrew, so I can't verify this myself.

Post
#86584
Topic
Other altered works
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/86584/action/topic#86584
Time
Okay, we all know about Star Wars (obviously). Some of you have also mentioned Tolkien's changes to "The Hobbit" (which actually happened by accident, and he decided to let it stick). What other works do you know of which had been altered by the creator, following the initial release?

I seem to recall having heard that Alexandre Dumas revised The Three Musketeers several times after it was first published (as a serial in a French magazine).

The video games Final Fantasy and Final Fantasy II have been revised as well. The most notable of which is the recent "Dawn of Souls" release, which makes notable changes to the core gameplay of the original Final Fantasy.

And while we're talking video games... let's not forget Street Fighter II.
Post
#83626
Topic
Classic Games
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/83626/action/topic#83626
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: TheSessler
Did they update the graphics any?


Yes, but they also made massive tweaks to the gameplay.

Seriously, if you have a Playstation 1 or 2, I recommend playing "Final Fantasy Origins" first (it's also a compilation of FF1&2, with enhanced graphics, but it's much closer to the originals in terms of gameplay--it makes a few tweaks, but they can all be deactivated).
Post
#78934
Topic
Expanded Universe Novel Discussion.
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/78934/action/topic#78934
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
I dunno. Luke allowed himself to be taken by Vader/the Emperor in Return of the Jedi.

I don't know what his intentions were for not resisting arrest in Splinter, but maybe it isn't so out of character for Luke.

And by extension, Luke rubbed-off on Leia, so she went along with it.


But you must remember that in ROTJ he was specifically trying to get close to Vader in order to try and convince him to turn back to the good side. In that context, it makes sense--if he had fought his way in, he would've just ended up fighting and killing Vader, which isn't what he wanted.

In Splinter, he just decides the odds are more than he can handle. I guess some of the mistakes made in that book are forgiveable considering that it was written before Empire Strikes Back came out, but still things like this made it not feel like Star Wars to me.
Post
#78862
Topic
Expanded Universe Novel Discussion.
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/78862/action/topic#78862
Time
Basically... I admit I didn't get very far in it, but from the onset it seemed more like a Tom Clancy novel than Star Wars. Now I like in-depth details and stuff, but I feel they're out of place in Star Wars.

I read a lot more of Splinter of the Mind's Eye than I did of Heir (I think I got at least one third of the way through), but it had Luke and Leia doing stuff I didn't feel was very true to their characters--willfully letting themselves be thrown in jail without a fight, for example, instead of having an all-out brawl. The plot was also a little slow, and many of the concepts it advanced are things I just don't see in Star Wars. So again, it just to me felt less like a Star Wars book and more like a book that just happened to feature the Star Wars name.
Post
#78782
Topic
Expanded Universe Novel Discussion.
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/78782/action/topic#78782
Time
Personally I just don't like the EU. I honestly tried to get into it... the only Star Wars novels I read and enjoyed were the novelizations of the OT. Afterwards I tried to read Heir to the Empire, but I just found it abysmally boring and it didn't "feel" like a Star Wars novel to me. I also tried out Splinter of the Mind's Eye, but again it felt more like a generic fantasy adventure than a Star Wars novel.

I used to own The Mandalorian Armor too, but I'm not a Boba Fett fanboy so I really never bothered with that one. I just didn't care about some incedental character.

But the OT Novelizations forever maintain a place on my shelf.
Post
#73303
Topic
Name Games
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/73303/action/topic#73303
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
What about Chewbacca? Lando Calrissian? Lobot? Palpatine? Those aren't exactly earthish names.


Chewbacca isn't unusual. To me it sounds like a twisting of the phrase "Chew Tobacco." And as someone else pointed out it's usually shortened into "Chewie." Finally, he's a wookiee, he SHOULDN'T have a name that's too ordinary.

Well, I know for a fact that RANDO is a real name (just watch MST3K: The Movie), and Lando is just Rando with an L. Calrissan? A mispronouncing of Carlson.

Who the hell is Lobot?

Palpatine you have a point on. It could be meant to sound foreign. And yea, it is a surname.