logo Sign In

The Bizzle

User Group
Members
Join date
21-Aug-2004
Last activity
14-Feb-2009
Posts
529

Post History

Post
#155149
Topic
Was that really the first Death Star in ROTS?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/155149/action/topic#155149
Time
Do you honestly think, though, that Star Wars would be as rich and interesting of a universe without the EU?


Yeah.

And Lucasfilm isn't Lucas. Lucasfilm is a corporate entity, with different arms and interests for different purposes, designed to protect and create as much merchandising as possible. of course they're going to try and legitimize all of their product for people like you obsessed enough to care about the canonity of an entirely fictional universe. It means you buy more of it. But Lucas himself, the guy who wrote the story, the screenplay, and directed the movie, "Revenge of the Sith" says that Death Star is THE DEATH STAR. That's your answer.

And I still think you should stop writing wiki entries.
Post
#154992
Topic
Was that really the first Death Star in ROTS?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/154992/action/topic#154992
Time
I write much of the stuff on wikipedia,


Yeah, if you could, please stop doing that. Wikipedia is incorrect enough as it is. Stop adding to it.

And goddamn, how did I know this would happen. Dude--the reason EU is called EU is because it's NOT CANON. There's a reason there's a completely different name for it. How you can read Butler's shit so thoroughly, and then completely miss the most IMPORTANT DISTINCTION HE (and LFL and everyone else) is making is totally beyond me. Lets compare this to anatomy, alright? Here's the analogy.

Canon is this one guy. He's in the house, standing around, reading the paper. Let's call him John. This one guy has a cousin, who just got back from college. The cousin just came inside the house and started reading the paper with the one guy. Let's call this college kid Jerry. This would be like you saying "They're releated, so John IS Jerry. They're the same guy."

Yes, they're related. Yes they're in the same family. But they're not the same person, not even closely. One (John) is the son of the creator of the universe. The other is the son of the creator's merchandising whore siblings (Jerry) They are not the same person. Hell, even BUTLER admits this. And it appears never to have occurred to you that Butler MIGHT want to put so much emphasis on trying to get the EU to be accepted as ANY form of "canon" simply because he's put so much time INTO the thing it might just legitimize the 15 or so years he's wasted on that fuckin timeline of his? Because he's actually gotten to WRITE some of that EU at some point? Why do you think "G-Canon" and "C-Canon" were invented as terms a few years ago? To sucker the few remaining people who couldn't take the crushing blow to their fantasy network that what happened in their head isn't REALLY WHAT HAPPENED for everyone else.

And has been stated, LUCAS HIMSELF says that's the Death Star. THE Death Star, now you wanna do some retconning and stretching to make it fit in YOUR personal vision of Star Wars, that's cool. It's a fictional universe, NONE of it ever really happened, which is what makes these canon arguments so futile in the end. But your mental-gymnastics to make it fit with a bunch of shit books you read during a bored, Star Wars Jonesing period, aren't LAW. They aren't canon.

It's really about that simple.

And seriously, stop writing Wiki entries.


Post
#154791
Topic
Was that really the first Death Star in ROTS?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/154791/action/topic#154791
Time
Well, the EU is considered canon


As has been mentioned already--no, it's not.

And before you link me to Nathan Butler and LFL's multifaceted rules of canon, I know that if you CHOOSE TO, it can be as canon as you want, but there's the movies, then screenplays, then the radio dramas, then the novelizations (and comic adaptations) of the movies--and that's it. Everything else is EU. Non Canon.
Post
#154534
Topic
This 2007 Archival Edition - For Real Or Not ???
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/154534/action/topic#154534
Time
we will not know the status of the saga 6 film boxset until the format wars between HD-DVD and blu ray die down a bit.


That's a false assumption. Even WITHOUT the battle between Blu-Ray and HD (and it's not even much of a battle anymore) being decided, this set is STILL going to come out on DVD. There are too many DVD players for it NOT to. There's no way he makes a huge all-inclusive box set and doesn't port it over to the format that has THE MOST installed units in the home. This (still a theoretical) set would make a significant amount of it's cash from regular DVD sales, not blu-ray.
Post
#154218
Topic
This 2007 Archival Edition - For Real Or Not ???
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/154218/action/topic#154218
Time
he cleaned up film version was so sparkly that we were blinded by the fact that Lucas altered EVEN MORE to the original trilogy


Naaah, the fact extra stuff was added was touted in almost all those magazine interviews. It was typically the lead-in to the poll you cited. "Lucas again has tinkered--which is interesting since according to this poll, 60 percent of people would like the originals on here as well" But it wasn't hidden, certainly not by the reviewers and writers, even the TV critics and such.

I wouldn't call "Robot Chicken" and a 2 year old South Park episode "hype" either. but people ARE aware. And LFL Marketing DOES want the originals out there. They've been fighting for it for a good 4 or 5 years, I know that. They just can't get it done. Whatever this "Archival Edition" that (supposedly) closes the book FINALLY on the Star Wars movies is their best chance to make money on those old versions, which is what they want to do. They'd LOVE to be able to sell you another version of Star Wars.
Post
#154214
Topic
Watching in order 1-6 is screwing up the original SW for newcomers!
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/154214/action/topic#154214
Time
But I am talking about just the fans of SW never mocked each other in a way we do now.


And I'm telling you, YES, they did. You just didn't notice it. I'm with you, man, I didn't notice it at the time, either. It took until way later, when I dug around the library, read some old stuff on microfilm, on the old PINE newsreaders back in 95-96, reading old magazine articles in the library database, and when google bought deja-news and made the history of usenet completely searchable, looked through that too. And what I'm telling you is that this sort of split, this rift, this anger has ALWAYS been there. it seems new to you because you just recently started focusing on that rift. but it's not new. Fans have mocked it. People who DID like the films were angered by later ones. The only substantial thing that's been changed by the Prequels is WHERE that rift runs now.

Before the SE's, the rift occurred between ESB and ROTJ, and to a lesser extent, between Star Wars and ESB. People saying "Star Wars to me is just Star Wars." hell, the first recorded instance of someone saying "A New Hope? Garbage revisionism. Give me Star Wars and throw away the rest" happened around 83 (I'm paraphrasing, but that was the sentiment) But there was a definite chunk of fandom that liked Star Wars, and seriously disliked one, if not both of the sequels, and mocked and argued and went rounds and fought just as much and as vehemently as geeks on the net do now.

After the SE's, the rift moved, obviously, to the Originals vs SE's. And then after the Prequels, the rift became PT vs OT. But it's the same rift, and the same sides on both sides, yelling the same stuff they've been yelling at each other since 1983. The Prequels and the SE's didn't do anything but change where that focus was placed.
Post
#154203
Topic
Watching in order 1-6 is screwing up the original SW for newcomers!
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/154203/action/topic#154203
Time
sorry guys. Totally missed this response on the 8th. I wanna rewind and address it

but the prequels have brought out a level of hatred that, to me personaly, has seriously hurt the saga.

I don't necessarily agree. Again, there were plenty of people in 1998 who liked star wars and didn't like every star wars movie. If I remember right, that infamous "50 reasons why ROTJ sucks" magazine article was written around then. Again, the idea that the prequels really fractured Star Wars fandom is a product of you not really paying attention or having access to other aspects of fandom before the internet. Star Wars fandom was ALWAYS this fractured. What the prequels (and the availability of the internet) did is bring that division closer to your home. It also doesn't help that on a site like this, such a division is one of THE focal points of discussion, especially in this forum. So you're going to get a tunnelvision thing going on, it's going to seem a lot more considerably fractured and more important than it really is.

To use a quote from a movie you hate "your focus determines your reality." what you focus on is altering your perception. That's essentially all I'm saying. you don't seem to be taking into account a "larger view" that includes more than just boards like this, and history of fans and fan writings and reactions BEFORE 1998. It's what allows you to say Star Wars, before the prequels, was never mocked by the fans
as if just stating it made it true. It SEEMED true to you, but it's not. Never has been.

This isn't a Star Wars only phenomena, either. It happens across the board to almost EVERY intellectual property with geek appeal. The notes we're hitting here aren't all that unique, Star Wars' incredible box office and home video sales regardless.
Post
#154200
Topic
This 2007 Archival Edition - For Real Or Not ???
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/154200/action/topic#154200
Time
But: do not underestimate--the power, of marketing.

Keep in mind for most DVD buyers, the idea of "value-added" material is still huge in their purchasing decisions. The movie itself is almost secondary to all the special features that will be added. Couple that with the fact that most consumers don't care if the movie has added elements in it, but it's damn sure one of the sore areas for the entertainment PRESS, who has now almost surpassed the entirety of the internet with their "greedo shoots first?!?" cracks and such. If original editions were bundled as an EXTRA on a giant box set, you can GUARANTEE the press is going to make a HUGE deal out of it, so much so that people, even if they didn't care, will think "hey, I'm getting an even BETTER deal than I thought" and the combination of the two will more than likely push a couple extra boxes out the door, whether the consumer really WANTS it or not. They'll be told it's worth having by the press, and the price will convince them they're "getting a deal" and there you go.
Post
#154105
Topic
IMPS The Relentless (Troops 2): A Dead Project?...or what?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/154105/action/topic#154105
Time
I sorta hope Troops 2 doesn't continue, as from what I can tell, Kevin Rubio has nothing to do with it, and I think that's a HUGE problem. His writing made that first fan-film what it was, so much so he ended up writing comics for Dark Horse afterwards. Good stuff.

I have little faith the guys making the "sequel" are hooking it up properly.
Post
#153960
Topic
Idea & found on ebay: 16mm film SCOPE Star Wars RETURN of THE JEDI MINT LPP
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/153960/action/topic#153960
Time
When I pointed it out to one of the professors that the school wanted these turfed, he found a vault somewhere to preserve them. Stupid me, I should have nicked them.


AAAAGH. DAMN your honesty!

I seriously would have stood over those cans and sweated for a good 20 or 30 minutes wrestling with whether to tell anyone or to just shove em in the back of my car and drive home as fast as I could, to wipe out my fridge so I had storage space. Hell, I probably would have bought another fridge on the way home.
Post
#153958
Topic
Watching in order 1-6 is screwing up the original SW for newcomers!
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/153958/action/topic#153958
Time
Yeah, it seems logical, but weren't there "rules" for saber fightin' in the OT that were just ignored to make the PT fight scenes "faster, more intense"? i.e. holding lightsabers with two hands?

Dude, that rule was ignored in Empire Strikes Back. And then Return of the Jedi.

Yes, some CGI looks bad, but that wasn't anyone's argument in here, as evidenced by the fact you admit some practical work looks bad as well. SOME effects just look bad, be it a rough day for the compositers on that shot, or time running out on the day of shooting, whatever. These sorts of things are unavoidable on any movie. I just don't see that the amount of BAD CGI necessarily outnumbers BAD practical effects. I think people are holding CGI to a standard it's never reached ever--total transparency. So that the instant you RECOGNIZE CGI, it becomes "BAD" CGI, whether it's bad or not. That's SOME people, not necessarily anyone in here. But just because it exists doesn't make it bad No one in here (Save for that Adamwan kid) is saying the CG work is ALL good, either. But it's good enough that for most of the time--it's indistinguishable from a model shot, or a matte painting, or a miniature. Not ALL the time--but that's a standard that model work itself never lived up to. And neither did the OT.

Like many bad digital effects, it looks like something out of a Playstation game gone wrong,


I'd love to play that playstation game if it existed. Not picking on you, just the way overheated and unrealistic cliche you just threw out. Jar Jar doesn't look like any video game on the market, man. Not even close. if a video game existed that had THAT level of detail in the graphics during gameplay--people would probably just stop going to movies. Comparing the output of WETA and ILM to a PLAYSTATION game is way overstating your case. At the least say Playstation 3 or something, you'd still be unrealistically far off as far as the comparison goes, but at least it'd be somewhere within the realm of believability. Just a pet peeve of mine, sorry

They have the gritty texture of real-life objects because they are real-life objects


I also like when people bring this up, models always have "Gritty Texture." Again, picking on the cliche, not the person, but sometimes models and miniatures don't have gritty texture. Sometimes they're just as shiny and smooth as, say, the Nubian starship. It depends on what the model or miniature is supposed to look like. and the "Used Space" idea wasn't necessarily supposed to be in Phantom Menace, either, so saying it didn't follow that ideal isn't much of a smack at the movie (and there's plenty of smacks to throw at it.) And typically, the textures on CG models and digital matte paintings are just as random and detailed as a real building or street or whatever--because the textures are taken directly from photographs of those things themselves. It's not like they're writing algorithms for EVERYTHING. Sometimes they do a high-tech version of an old movie trick--when you look out a window, you see a city, but it's just a large photograph of a city with a light shining through it. Now you look out that window, and it's a digital photograph of that city composited in. Same thing, different technique.
Post
#153697
Topic
Info Wanted: Just wondering... re acquiring a digital copy of something I already own?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/153697/action/topic#153697
Time
if you've got a 4:3 -- Go with Editdroid. Not even a question.
if you've got a 16x9 -- go with Dr. Gonzo. Maybe not as sharp, but the color is more true

Either way, go with Rowman's supplemental discs. Essentially you end up making 2 disc special editions. If you wanna go 3 disc, I recommend getting Darth Editous ANH edit, and A Digital Man's ESB and ROTJ edits to complement the original versions and the bonus disc
Post
#153692
Topic
ROTS Extras: CGI TPM Yoda
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/153692/action/topic#153692
Time
film isn't perfect, and tampering with it isn't going to make it that way.


That's sort of silly. The idea that art isn't malleable seems to be a recent occurrence, and I don't understand it. Can anyone pinpoint the widespread acceptance of the idea that you can't EVER go back to a work of art after you're done with it? It seemed to happen sometime in the 90's. And this shit puppet seems to be the PERFECT justification for the idea of going back, as NOBODY liked it. What he's replacing it with at least has mostly positive word. Seems to make sense to me.

And expressing the idea that tampering with film isn't EVER going to help seems ironic on a board that's now more known for it's fan-edits than it's preservation ideal.