logo Sign In

Mike O

User Group
Members
Join date
20-Jun-2006
Last activity
12-Jul-2025
Posts
2,347

Post History

Post
#248168
Topic
BEAUTIFUL WOMEN NEW RULES IN FIRST POST (NSFW) UPDATED RULES
Time
I thought that she'd show up here, especially since TNT started running Without A Trace. Hasn't she been in a whole bucch of spreads for magazines or something? And what is the last photo from?

Is it just me, or are her eyes kind of cold? She doesn't seem to have a lot of warmth. I know that it's extraordinarily odd, but there's something about her eyes that really leaves me cold.

I would rather fuck a blender.


I am pschologically scarred for life.
Post
#248065
Topic
Raul2106
Time
Originally posted by: TheCassidy
Originally posted by: Wesyeed
yeah what the hell's been with the recent influx of trolls? They had no interest in fucking with us here before. Must be the new dvd or something...


Sort've...when TFN banned all of the bashing (ie: anyone who wasn't a blind follower of the cult of Star Wars) there was a massive internet exodus, and unfortunately, many of the bottom feeders ended up here.

So, we're graced with topics in the General section which are usually right at home at TFN.


You've met him over at fanedited.com. Is he still saying that there will be a proper OOT DVD release in the boxed set next year?
Post
#248064
Topic
Official Indiana Jones DVD Release
Time
Originally posted by: Darth_Evil
Originally posted by: TheCassidy
Originally posted by: Darth_Evil
If you can't notice changes to a movie, then why bother trying to find them? If you can't notice them, they don't matter. They won't interrupt your viewing. If you get on forums and try to find out details on little tiny things that MIGHT have been changed....well, suffice to say, that's kind of sad.

For instance, the crawl on the GOUT dvd's isn't the absolute original crawl, but you'd have to take screenshots, analyze it closely, watch it over and over, and if you do find something different, you're bothered by it. That's why if you don't notice any changes while just watching it, then there's no reason to worry.


That's apples and oranges, really. You're talking altering an original film image, versus digitally re-creating something and tacking it on to the start of a film.

I'm not sure why, when it comes to Indiana Jones, people are far more forgiving of the fact that the original, unaltered film has not been re-released on DVD versus Star Wars.

Granted, none of the story content has been changed, but the image was manipulated. I don't think the manipulation is done to the extent that we might be thinking, as far as I know only three cosmetic changes were made (cobra reflection, boulder guide track, matte lines) to 'Raiders.'

It's so minor that it's no wonder so many people are divided on the issue. I take a bigger issue with the colour "correction" that was done than anything else. 'Raiders' used to have an almost sepia-tone quality to it, and now it looks like a technicolour nightmare.


Jeez....these changes are so little you really have to dig to see them. I saw this movie on the big screen two weeks ago from an old print, and I'd watched the DVD a few days before that. No changes I could see. They're there, I know, but if you can't notice them without thinking about them, then why do they matter?

And for the record, the original unaltured versions of Star Wars have never made it to DVD either. But the changes made from theaters to the GOUT DVD probably amount to the same number of changes made to raiders.

And the thing about Sepia Tone and technicolor....I have no idea what you mean. Yes, I saw this, in a theater, from a real 35 mm print made back in the 80's and I saw no sepia quality to it. The colors are a little brighter on the DVD, but that's all I could notice. Of course, this print was 20 some years old and was fading.


I don't know, I mead I wish that they hadn't messed with it and I'd buy the original if it was released, but this isn't the kind of thing I could expect a re-release for. It's easy to point to changes in the SEs. "Jar-Jar was not and should not be in ROTJ!" But imagine telling someone, "See, there should be wires there!" It would be stupid to expect a re-release for that reason. I'd want one, of course, but I'd understand why one would not be released. I can't see a lot of demand for it. Then again, with the number of times Lucasfilm re-release things, who knows?
Post
#248062
Topic
SciFi.com 2006 OUT DVD review
Time
Originally posted by: Darth Cracker
I like Melissa ~ she talks quite a bit of sense.
look out for the original's use of different music to rock out on Jabba's barge
~ although i think she means "Jabba's Palace" in that instance?
Is she on these boards? Can i take her out to dinner??

September 25, 2006

Star Wars Trilogy DVD

By Melissa Perenson

For many of us, these three movies are responsible for launching our collective imaginations into the realm of what science fiction cinema could be. But in this age of digital production, when everything is in flux and nothing is permanent, what is the definitive edition of a film?

In and of themselves, the films are worthy of buying for what they are—especially if you've never seen the originals or your memory of the originals is fuzzy.

The question has been on the table for years, and it is revisited once more with Lucasfilm's latest release of the original Star Wars trilogy. Is the original theatrical version that enraptured us as schoolchildren and won Academy Awards the so-called version of record? Or should any of the successive releases, often dubbed "limited edition" or "director's cut" or "remastered"—be considered fair game for the version of record?

The fact is, no matter what improvements those successive versions may bring, the original theatrical version of a film holds a special place both in audiences' hearts and in history. And it is for this reason that these versions cannot be ignored.

So imagine the excitement of Star Wars fans when news first hit that nearly a decade into the DVD revolution, Lucasfilm was going to grant fans with one of their top requests—the original theatrical versions of the first Star Wars trilogy.

In the various special-edition theatrical, home video and DVD releases of the trilogy, we've seen these movies time and again. We've followed the adventures of Han Solo (Ford) and Leia (Fisher), Threepio (Daniels) and R2-D2 (Baker) and traced Luke (Hamill) in his hero's journey from a scrappy Tatooine desert rat to a skilled Jedi Knight who destroys the Sith Emperor and reclaims his father from the Dark Side of the Force.

With the inclusion of the original 1977, 1980 and 1983 films, we finally get to see the films that captivated us in our youth. And those who worship at the feet of Amidala, Anakin and Obi-Wan and company can see the films that started it all.

Unlike last year's long-awaited DVD release of the Star Wars trilogy, these limited-edition versions are being sold individually. The first disc is identical to last year's DVD release; the second disc contains what's being billed as the original theatrical release.

The differences can be striking. Some have been much ballyhooed, and others are more subtle. In Episode IV, for example, in the newer version, some scenes on Tatooine are brighter and have more punch than in the original; you'll see X-Wing fighters taking off from Yavin instead of colored blips, and the Death Star's explosion is a pyrotechnic CGI fireball, not a whimper. Oh, and the original cantina scene in which Han shot first ... well, that small change is palpable and reasserts who Han Solo is.

The changes in the other films are in some ways less momentous but nonetheless add up; in total, they point to Lucas' meddling with the originals to better fit with improved technology and with the second trilogy. In Empire, keep an eye for the original Emperor (no, Ian McDiarmid wasn't the first), a more streamlined Cloud City and the original take on the Millennium Falcon's run through an asteroid field. In Jedi, for example, look out for the original's use of different music to rock out on Jabba's barge, a different vision of Anakin in the parting Jedi-elders shot on Endor and a different Ewok village finale.

Great concept, missed opportunity

Should Star Wars fans dare to follow Lucas once more into the realm of these new, limited-edition DVDs? Yes—and no. Last year's DVD release actually constitutes exactly one-half of what you get for your $30 (the films can be found at online retailers for under $20 a pop). I won't fault Lucasfilm for this—after all, the original theatrical versions are valuable educational tools and historical references whose importance in both Star Wars canon and filmmaking annals is only clear when the films are compared with the modernized versions. And at least the films are released individually, so if all you really crave is seeing Han shoot first in the Cantina sequence with Greedo, well, all you have to do is buy a single disc.

In and of themselves, the films are worthy of buying for what they are—especially if you've never seen the originals or your memory of the originals is fuzzy. For that alone, each of these discs rates: These original films were lost to home audiences for so long, it's a delight to see them out from the mothballs.

That said, Lucasfilm missed the chance to score a home run with these discs. And for that reason, the discs must be panned even as they're praised. Compared with the digitally restored and remastered movies released last year, the original theatrical versions—last seen on a randomly accessible disc during the LaserDisc release some two decades ago—look mediocre to shabby. If you're watching them on a standard-definition 4:3 television, the films won't look bad; in fact, you may only notice some minor softness in the image as compared to the newer, remastered versions.

The original versions seen here have unsophisticated menus, and the movie itself suffers from dated video and audio (these versions are encoded with Dolby 2.0 surround sound, not Dolby Digital 5.1 surround, as the newer editions are). Furthermore, while the image is presented in widescreen, it's not optimized for anamorphic displays (a more critical feature if you're using a high-definition widescreen display).

Furthermore, Lucasfilm missed the chance to highlight the changes from one version to the other, and why those happened. The only audio commentaries are found on the new DVD release discs. The original theatrical versions lack any sort of pointers to what was changed and why, and that is a significant omission. Without such an extra feature, many of the subtleties of what changed may be lost on all but the most devoted audiences.

Ostensibly, the original films are set to go out of circulation once the limited-edition discs stop being sold at the end of the year, so this could be your one chance to get the original versions, at least for a while. Of course, with the next-generation high-definition disc formats here, I fully expect we'll see a Blu-ray version of the original films in several years, once the format matures. I can only hope that Lucasfilm will take advantage of the next-gen formats' interactivity to really highlight the old and new versions.—Melissa


Source: http://www.scifi.com/sfw/screen/sfw13653.html


Wow. It's really hit the fan. I knew that fans would be upset, but I had no idea that Lucas would suffer this much backlash for this release. I wonder if that means anything?
Post
#247812
Topic
2007 Banner Year for DVDs! GO TIGER!
Time
Originally posted by: Krycek87
Actually is quite smart.
Movies like this are the so called "big guns".
With Superman being released on both formats, Some people will be more interested in Buying either the Bluray or the HD DVD.


I don't know, I mean I don't want to back an HD format and spend all my money on it. I keep hoping Bill Hunt is right and that the formats will sort of be niche, but with my luck, it proably won't happen that way. I guess time will tell.

Not crazy about the Donner Cut cover art either. I doesn't really matter, as long as the product is good, I'm just saying.
Post
#247766
Topic
hi original trilogy peple
Time
Originally posted by: Darth_Evil
In fact, the petition got to over 70,000 posts I believe. It was cool. This forum became a haven for anyone who loved the original versions of Star Wars. Everyone here is a lot a like, and we can all relate to each other, which makes this such a great community. It's a lot better than IMDb, where there's a dick on every thread...


There's nothing wrong with disagreeing or liking the SEs. It's trolling that a problem. We need a new petition or something, by the way. Has Jay given up?
Post
#247402
Topic
Official Indiana Jones DVD Release
Time

Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
I agree that they only changed nit-picky things, and comparing it to Star Wars or THX-1138, it's a masterpiece, and, in general, it's a masterpiece. But those little things still just annoy me slightly.

Me too, but I wouldn't expect a re-release like I would SW or THX. But it's be nice if they didn't do that.

Young Indy DVD IS planned. Look HERE for cover art. I don't know when it's coming out, but a set IS planned.


That's nice. If it comes out after a proper OOT DVD release, I'll buy.
Post
#247244
Topic
Raul2106
Time
Originally posted by: Cable-X1
I KNEW it was him!!!!

What a loser!!!!

Is he really banned? Anyone know?


He's over at fanedited.com. There is a thread, started by him, about OT.com and he is saying many very confusing things, but it sounds like he's sticking to his story that there will be a proper OOT release next year. I sincerely hope that he is right.
Post
#247205
Topic
Lucasfilm to sell Physical Effects Unit
Time
Originally posted by: Zebonka
The extended version of ROTK is a *mess*.
Right off the top of my head, that whole business with the running-away-from-the-skull-avalanche scene just looks stupid; I can't believe they put such time and effort into it.
And also - they removed any sort of suspense over the ghost army, when he wanders out of a wall and says 'we fight' in a crappy money shot.... that is a truly on-the-nose example of when a filmmaker doesn't know when to leave something alone; when they feel the need to spell something out in ridiculous fashion.

Really liked LOTR for the most part, but for movies that people insist are the 'best ever made', there are a crapload of flaws in there. They are very much products of their time, and some shots will not age terribly well (that ridiculous shot of Legolas jumping on the horse, could've been straight out of Spider-Man).

Perhaps, but on the whole, they're a breathtaking achievement in my view. I don't mind a few crowd-pleaser moments . By and large, I don't remember being so exhilarated by a film since I first saw the OOT on video years and years. As I left FOTR I thougt, "This is why I go to the movies." Some of the visual effects may not age well, but the characters and the story, thanks mostly to Tolkien, are rich and timeless, and Jackson doesn't forget them.

I maybe would've preferred the Rings Trilogy if Jackson hadn't killed The Two Towers. No matter what form it's in, extended or theatrical, it's a mess. The book is so much better.

I think that the extended edition rectified much from the theatrical version. I certainly altered the character of Faramir, but in the EE, he is redeemed as one of the great Men, as Tolkien intended him.

But Return of the King was an even greater travesty upon the books.


In what way, precisely?

In terms of plain movies, ignoring the books, Two Towers was the best with Return of the King and Fellowship winning a tie in my mind.


But shoudn't that be the terms upon which the film is evaluated? As a film?

And then when you put it at the beginning of the King Extended, it's logically and tonally a mess and feels really tacted on.


I don't think so, I mean Tolkien wrote it as a complete story anyways. Good points all. Thanks.

And stop calling it "A New Hope ."

I find it interesting that the best of the Harry Potter films, the third, is the one that deviates most from the book.