You're making me glad I didn't go today. These sorts of special screenings seem to have so many technical screwups, it's not worth the cost to go if it's two towns over for me.
The local revival house showed a print a few years back, maybe they'll get it again someday.
I definitely saw the 1990 Fantasia reissue. The Laserdisc does it justice.
I hope someday Disney sees the money in doing a Blade Runner type boxset containing every version.
Fantasia did for the 50th anniversary reissue. Not to mention The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast in their original runs.
As Spielberg was involved with AAT, I thought there was a chance of it.
Is it possible AAT had a 70mm release? As with Star Wars there can be noticeable variations in the mix between 70mm and 35mm.
I had to venture into Walmart tonight, and you'll never guess which character is a store exclusive action figure with a brand new sculpt no less!
What hath Frink wrought?
That would all depend on if he could find a comparable plot of land in such an area, and being able to buy it though.
There was once a story in my local paper about Sony owning a large tract of lemon groves they wanted to build a new studio complex on. Twenty years later, and nothing ever happened.
If George ever wants to build the Skywalker theme park in Florida, I happen to own some swampland. ;)
If I can get the LD transfers done this month, who is going to take the lead on this?
I didn't even know EFNY was out on Blu here. I'll have to look for it.
I have Halloween on Blu, but have only listened to the commentary track so far.
Amazingly, Universal did not remix They Live or Prince of Darkness, but maybe they didn't want to spend too much on those DVD releases.
At least in most cases, there is a Laserdisc out there to preserve the original audio mix.
Is this not a theatrical poster for the second film? Note yet another subtitle.
CP3S said:
ray_afraid said:
Johnny Ringo said:
We just don't know how things will play out yet, maybe humanity is plunged into a sort of technological dark age?
Riddley has stated that the difference in tech is there because he didn't want to make a movie that looks like it's from the 70's. Simple as that.
I think this is perfectly reasonable.
In TOS Klingon's had smooth heads. Then once the movies and TNG came along they stepped it up with the alien makeup and they had ridged foreheads. I liked the ridged foreheads and am glad they decided to make one of the more prominent alien species in the series more alien looking than they were in TOS. Having Klingons forever be brown people with goatees would have been kind of lame. Unfortunately, this made overly anal Trek fans spend years sitting around with wrinkled brows trying to come up with the most reasonable in universe explanation for this discrepancy. To me, it always felt that the real life explanation of different time periods the series were made in, along with tech and budget restraints, should have been more than reasonable enough for anyone. But fans continued to agonize over this issue until Enterprise wrote a really dumb explanation that soothed their aching sphincters.
With all due respect, Deep Space Nine opened that can of worms the minute Koloth, Kang, and Kor showed up with ridges. I was perfectly happy to overlook the issue until the Tribble episode made a big deal of it. So don't go blaming Enterprise for trying to clean up that mess. ;)
Both were released theatrically in outside the U.S. You can see plenty of the posters on Ebay, including a couple weird ones. The one with a Han Solo lookalike in place of Wilford Brimley is my favorite.
I'm guessing open matte or 1.66:1. (They would have shot with tv framing marks in the viewfinder either way.) That rather huge book on ILM had a section on the FX work, so there might be a clue in that.
John Korty and directing brothers Jim and Ken Wheat are still active in the industry. Maybe someone could ask them what the aspect ratios were?
Obi's droid needs to comment on the fact the antenna is made from a colander. ;)
Let us not bear George any ill will today, okay?
He probably has a "surprise" birthday party to endure at the ranch. ;)
And thanks for the link to that story, doubleofive. Seems that there is some good left in him after all.
Is there something wrong with using Vimeo? And Youtube probably won't notice if you post links to clips on Vimeo.
ray_afraid said:
Ok, so the tech thing has started to bother me, a bit. Like I've said in this thread, I can buy that the Prometheus is a newer, state-of-the-art scientific research vessel and the Nostromo a Mack truck so the differences in tech seem appropriate to me. But I watched Aliens last night and was struck with how the design team really nailed the world of Alien. Everything looks like it could exist in the world the first film created. But there is no sign of Prometheus style touch-screen tech anywhere. Certainly the medical facilities and other locations we see would feature this kind of tech if it existed in this world, yeah? Especially when you take into account the time between the two films. So i did some digging around on the topic on found this Q&A with Riddley Scott and co-witter Damon Lindelof. They touch on a number of things like using real practical sets apposed to CGI (hooray!), Scotts decision to shoot in 3D ("it works like a son of a bitch" he says) and Scotts decision to make the tech in this film sleeker and more modern instead of the grungy look of Alien. So there ya have it. Lindelof gives the defense some of us on this thread have subscribed to (nuclear submarine vs. oil rig), but it seems the difference is there because Scott wanted it that way. "Creative decision". A bit disappointing, but it doesn't break the film for me. From what I've seen the Prometheus' touch-screens are the only things that jump out at me as being from another world. The costumes, creatures and vehicle/prop design all look very 'Alien' to me (anybody know if Bob Cobb is on the design team? If not, they've done a fine job at re-creating his style).
You mean Ron Cobb, and I can't find any IMDB credits for him past 2006. (With the exception of a documentary on Dark Star, but that could be archival footage.) Would be nice if he worked on Prometheus though.
There's always Vimeo, so as to keep it from vanishing entirely from the web.
TPM almost looks and feels like the originals in a couple places. Some Tatooine scenes, and the final battle against the droid control ship. That has more to do with the use of physical models and shooting on film more than anything else I guess.
Funny how it took the Clone Wars series to bring in things we should have seen in the prequels, like shiny new Y-Wings.
Compared to Lucas, I think not. ;)
Bingowings said:
I guess the official OT OTTO thread acts as a filter.
We need to have a thread on the wacky world of SW knockoff merchandise someday. And who knew Dark Helmet and Baron Karza had a love child?
Bingowings said:
Like this wasn't disturbing enough the first time I saw this reveal in 1978! ;)
Yes I can. But I've got a bunch of other LD's to get through first.
I could have sworn Alien came out in 1979. ;)
I was a Trekker already. ;)
Holy zombie thread, Batman!
Both were shot on film, as they were released theatrically overseas. Very few tv movies were ever shot on video back then.
I still have my Laserdiscs. And I captured my off air VHS recording of Battle For Endor a couple years ago.
I tend to blurt out "Papa Smurf!" when that scene comes up. ;)
IIRC, Star Wars blogger T-bone ended up on Lucas' poodoo list for putting a photo of Baron Papnoida on the web before the movie was out.
