logo Sign In

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda

User Group
Members
Join date
20-Sep-2006
Last activity
7-Feb-2024
Posts
3,220
Web Site
http://www.hardbat.com/puggo

Post History

Post
#312572
Topic
Why do PT defenders and such keep claiming the OT was badly written as well ?!
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/312572/action/topic#312572
Time
To be completely honest, there ARE some moments of weak dialogue in the OT. They're easy to find in ROTJ, as Ford's acting becomes increasingly wooden and the script becomes more formulaic. Even SW, which in my opinion has by far the best dialogue, has its cheesy moments ("flyboy" reminds me of "ex-squeeze-me", and then there's "reach out with your feelings"). But these are only the tiniest of blips compared to the barrage of embarrassing line after embarrassing line in all of the PT movies.

They also serve to show how bad SW could have been. One of the reasons SW was so good is that it was edited masterfully. The SW scenes on the cutting room floor are IMO uniformly awful, including of course the ones put back in for the SE (one thing the SE does, is painfully illustrate how good the original editing was, and how close to catastrophe SW was skating). The story was cheesy B stuff, edited into a tight, effective movie that holds its atmosphere and pop for the entire run. Just read the Lucas novel... the dialogue is overdrawn and clumsy compared to the movie. For dialogue to be good, you need good tight editing, and enough strong takes from which to edit.
Post
#311663
Topic
I'll give Episode One something...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/311663/action/topic#311663
Time
Originally posted by: Jonno
The other problem as I see it was that it shouldn't have been played as an 'exciting' scene at all - this sequence has the most forgone conclusion in the entire saga, so why not treat it with mournful inevitability?

In the same manner, I always thought that the Yoda duels were done completely wrong. I pictured Yoda being the model of efficiency - a step here, a move there, and "bing" you realize you've been hit. But instead he was a maniacal banshee. Another lost opportunity.
Post
#309534
Topic
GOUT image stabilization - Released
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/309534/action/topic#309534
Time
Originally posted by: g-force
It might, but I have never worked with Vdub. From my unterstanding, DePanStabilize works the same way that DeShaker does, and I know from a LOT of experience that DePanStabilize doesn't work for this at all.

I can't speak for DePanStabilize, but I had a similar application with a huge video restoration project which had almost constant, small wobble. I found a set of DeShaker settings that worked great. You can set limits on the correction, and the zone on the screen on which to base the correction calculation. I'd be glad to share the settings I used, if you want to try it. Vdub is trivial to work with, btw.
Post
#302546
Topic
Info Wanted: the bare minimum - what would you want put back?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/302546/action/topic#302546
Time
Originally posted by: Baronlando
What am i missing?
Er, Han shooting first?

I guess Mos Eisley angered me the most. They turned a musty old spaceport into Disneyland. But besides that, after reviewing all of the changes throughout the movie, the original movie really just needs to be restored. Going back in and changing matte lines, adding CGI, just is wrong. I mean, what if they went in and replaced the original King Kong with a "better" CGI Kong? Would it still be the 1933 classic? No, it would be some sort of wierd concept project - which is exactly what the SE is. And it shows.
Post
#301615
Topic
Info: 16mm ESB and ROTJ films on ebay
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/301615/action/topic#301615
Time
Originally posted by: zombie84
Originally posted by: Puggo - Jar Jar's "Yoda"
In case any of you folks forgot, I have a 16mm telecine Moviestuff Workprinter, in addition to the 8mm unit I used for the Puggo Edition.

Thats actually tempting but i fear that anything less than a laser film scanner will not give us anything better than the Laserdisks already available.
Just out of curiosity how much did you pay for that and what reason did you originally buy it for?

Certainly, I would expect my transfer of a 16mm film to be worse than the GOUT. However, it is likely to be better than the transfer a typical transfer house would do. But the only reason to do it would be in case there were any little differences (as there were in the 8mm films).

I don't remember exactly what I paid for the WorkPrinters, since it was a few years ago... something like 1200 each. I've been using them to transfer historic films owned by the US Table Tennis association, and the magazine Drum Corps World. Of course, along the way I did the SW/ESB 8mm films (Puggo), an old SW 16mm trailer, and my grandparents' old home movies, among other things.
Post
#299964
Topic
Would you give up ESB in exchange for...?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/299964/action/topic#299964
Time
I voted "no", because I think all movies should be preserved, whether the brilliant "Star Wars" (which has not been preserved), or the crappy prequels (which, knowing GL, are doomed to the same fate), or "Plan 9 From Outer Space". So I can't in good conscience vote to preserve one, while voting to destroy the others. Destroying films is what we are decrying GL for doing.

Having said that, I think that anyone who sits down as a blank slate, assessing the 6 movies, as movies, would have to conclude that Star Wars, in its original form, rates an unqualified A+, while ESB ranks about a B (already by ESB things were starting to get a little contrived). Then it drops off fast, with ROTJ about a C and the prequels all garnering F-minuses. That's not to say they aren't all fun - even the prequels are great eye candy. But as classic movies, let's be honest here... as utterly brilliant as "Star Wars" was (and it is my favorite movie of all time), the whole "saga" is a laughable catastrophe which started out "iffy" with ESB and has only gotten worse and worse with each additional episode. The walkers were cool, though
Post
#298882
Topic
Anything? Anything At All? (that is remotely positive or good about the SE and PT?)
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/298882/action/topic#298882
Time
I actually don't "detest" Lucas for messing up the films. How can I detest someone that created my favorite movie ever, "Star Wars"? I simply think that he is misguided, and is too close to his own films to see the big picture. That's normal. What I "detest" is the fact that nobody around him seems to be making any effort to convince him to do what is obviously right - that nobody is screaming in opposition except us little folk. This is not all GL's fault... sure he's the one with the power, but everyone around him seems too wimpy (or inept) to speak out about it. People do strange things in the absence of normal peer feedback. I guess what I detest are all the "yes men" that are obviously going along with this.
Post
#298590
Topic
What If The SE Were Only...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/298590/action/topic#298590
Time
I think that it is irrelevant what changes were made - the main factor was making the original unavailable. Had he made both available, we'd all be glomming up every different version out there. Now, the hard core fans are just p.o.'ed, and we think twice before shelling out $ for yet another SW, when the original is still not properly released. Heck, if the original was treated as well as it should be, I wouldn't care if he made different versions with various changes, updates, rewrites, etc. In fact I'd probably find it interesting. As it is, I find it disgusting, which is unfortunate.
Post
#297508
Topic
George Lucas to host showing of Star Wars "1977" for AFI's 40th anniversary.
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/297508/action/topic#297508
Time
Originally posted by: JediRandy

<...a more reasoned response...>

Now I can agree with you for the most part. However, note that these letters are directed at AFI and their sense of dignity, not at anything legal and not at GL. Their purpose is ostensibly to try and wake someone up over there. I have to believe that there are real movie lovers at AFI... people who really really love the art of movie-making, and think it is important. If we can play some small part in arousing a few of them from their coma, maybe just maybe someday someone with some importance will see what to us and to most movie purists is obvious - that there is a great moment in movie history that has been neglected and must be preserved. I have to believe there are people there who would care if it was pointed out to them and they thought about it for 5 seconds. Perhaps someday, someone who GL respects would read one of our whiney emails by accident, have an epiphany, and actually appeal to GL to do the right thing. Or maybe after GL dies, some people will be waiting in the wings to act. There's hope as long as there are people with the passion to keep trying... that's why I like this board and how its members never give up.
Post
#297502
Topic
George Lucas to host showing of Star Wars &quot;1977&quot; for AFI's 40th anniversary.
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/297502/action/topic#297502
Time
Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
Sure, they could take a vocal stance against it, and it would be nice if they did, but it's really something the majority of people don't care about/won't notice,...

The majority of people don't care/won't notice if the works of Shakespeare, Michelangelo, or Ingemar Bergman are preserved either. That should be irrelevant.
Post
#297500
Topic
George Lucas to host showing of Star Wars &quot;1977&quot; for AFI's 40th anniversary.
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/297500/action/topic#297500
Time
Originally posted by: JediRandyWell said but if it's the original author of the piece of art... then you don't really have room to complain, IMO.

You raise a point that begs several classic questions... (1) suppose a great artist, say DaVinci, in his later years went clinically insane and had delusions that his masterpieces must be destroyed because they were possessed by demons. Must it be done? (2) what if someone paid DaVinci to destroy them, on a lark, and DaVinci decided he wanted the money? Must it be done? (3) What if someone today bought the Mona Lisa, and decided to publicly burn it? Must it be done? By your statement above, not only are the answers to all of these questions "yes", nobody should even complain about it.

Well, shouldn't someone? At what point does art take on a cultural significance beyond that of a mere commodity owned by someone?

Even more to the point, shouldn't an organization that purports to be a film "institute" at least condemn the major alteration of a classic film, regardless of whether it has any legal basis to enforce it? I think it should, on the very basis of what it says on its own webpage, that it "maintains America's film heritage". By not taking a stand on the preservation of a great film, it shirks its most fundamental duty, and loses all credibility as a film "institute", in my opinion.
Post
#297486
Topic
George Lucas to host showing of Star Wars &quot;1977&quot; for AFI's 40th anniversary.
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/297486/action/topic#297486
Time
My complaints with Lucas and the handling of the OOT has nothing to do with which version I think is better. It has everything to do with the importance of art as a window into its culture and its time. With each modern revision, even if it is an improvement (and some of the changes were, in my opinion - not many, but a few), a piece of art history is lost. With each revision, the true reflection of its time is diluted.

For example, suppose that someone took some pre-Rennaisance paintings and improved them by correcting some of the technical mistakes in their use of perspective. Although the technical delivery would be improved, and quite possibly even their aesthetic appeal and power in some cases, they would have considerably less artistic/cultural value. Their significance would immediately become questionable, and it would be impossible to learn anything about art in the time period in which they were first rendered, since an observer would not know which aspects were actually from that era and which were added later.

I realize that with Star Wars, the differences are much more minor. But 20 years is a very long time in the rapidly expanding technology of Hollywood. The fact that it was Star Wars that largely begat this explosion of special effects realism makes it hugely important to preserve it in its original form for cultural/historic reasons. This is why I am so disturbed that film institutes such as AFI haven't been screaming bloody murder about the lack of preservation of such a groundbreaking film. In fact, NO film even of moderate interest should be allowed to be lost or diluted in this manner. It should be a cultural no-no, period. It has nothing whatsoever to do with what I like.
Post
#297437
Topic
George Lucas to host showing of Star Wars &quot;1977&quot; for AFI's 40th anniversary.
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/297437/action/topic#297437
Time
Originally posted by: Mike O
To whom it may concern,
It has come to my attention that you are sceening Star Wars. However, you have listed the release as 1977. While the original version was released in 1977, George Lucas made extensive restorations to this version in 1997 and 2004, as wel; retitling it "A New Hope" in 1981. Moreover, the DVD releases indicate 2004 as the release date on their packaging. Unless you are showing the 1977 version, which of course Lucasfilm, despite intense criticism, will now allow,


Hmm, rather important typo there... I think you mean "not allow".
Post
#297293
Topic
George Lucas to host showing of Star Wars &quot;1977&quot; for AFI's 40th anniversary.
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/297293/action/topic#297293
Time
Here's what I wrote:

Dear AFI,
Thank you for honoring "Star Wars" in your 40th anniversary. You obviously
care deeply about honoring the great art of movie-making and its glorious
history. I can only assume that you also value the preservation of movies
as not only a valuable historic record, but as a mirror to our culture and
as priceless windows into the times in which they were made.

To that end, I hope that you can assert whatever influence you might
have in seeing that "Star Wars" (1977) is preserved in its original,
un-modified, un-"improved" form that garnered 7 Academy Awards and changed
movie-making forever. I fear that by presenting the movie in its 1997
altered "special edition" form, or even its 1981 "A New Hope" altered form,
you are in fact condoning the singular neglect and continued failure to
preserve this 1977 American masterpiece. It is unfathomable that an
Academy Award-winning movie has been made unavailable in its original
award-winning form, as it would be unfathomable to alter or "improve"
say, the Mona Lisa. Art is art, and the American Film Institute has an
obligation inherent in its very name to not tolerate the altering of film
history. Movie lovers are looking to you to help preserve, protect, and
honor the cinematic art of the past, and to demand artistic integrity
regardless of any pragmatic obstacles that doing so might face.

Respectfully,
Dr. Scott Gordon