TheBoost

Bingowings said:

It's a great film in it's own right but it has lots of AKAs :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mask_of_Satan

There are some nice shots you could use if you wanted to build a Lucy subplot, crypts and the like and a lovely tumbledown gothic church which could double for Carfax abbey.

 

 Oh... I know of it as "Black Sunday." Good flick. I'm not sure footage from 1960 would match up, even decolorized.

I just made it through most of the RKO 1940s horror films, and scored a couple of shots I might use.

Frankly, Mexican Dracula is so damn much better than the Browning film it hurts.

darthmunky said:

Watching the new Star Wars Family Guy made me realize how unneeded and confusing it really is.

At six years old I never found it confusing, but then again it's hard to argue with the exhaustive and thoughtful critique of Family Guy.

In regards to the whole 'they win, we win' idea, I myself am a huge sports enthusist, but only when it's live.

With a roaring crowd, I really buy into the idea that the Dodgers somehow represent me, and every year I attend the main football game between the high school I work at and our main rivals and I feel the bloodlust and thrill of victory as strong as any facepainted maniac at a Packers game.

But for me, on television, that just doesn't work. TV sports are about the most boring thing I can think to watch, and consequently I don't 'follow' teams, becasue I can only manage a couple trips to Dodger stadium a year. I need the roar of 50,000 people (or 2,000 high school students) to make it matter. Otherwise I feel like i'm watching someone else play Nintendo.

Darth Solo said:

The way i see it is that there are 4 types of followers here. Ranging from the totally open minded and love everything thats just Star Wars, to the extreme hardcore un-changed OT fan that doesn't want the films changed in anyway but of the highest . I think most of us loath the SE's changes, but will embrace "some" changes for the better (thats always going to be walking a bit of mine field, as GL may have found out after the release of the SE's and the birth of tu net). That group gets split almost 3 ways with 3 filums. ...Well, 2 ways mostly, but most want to look on it as equally as 3 ways /:-P

 I for one have no problems with the SE, any of the myriad changes made to it. Frankly, its a bold step forward into what exactly a film-director's job is. Go Special Editions!

BUT... I do now and always will prefer the OUT. Any beef I have with the SEs is based soley on the lack of availability of the OUT. If they were both out and the OUT was restored, I'd probably own the LFL version of both happily.

Bingowings said:

Maybe the slow motion carriage from Mask Of Satan could be used, some chunks of Mark Of The Vampire could work very well indeed.

 I'm not familiar with Mask of Satan I'll have to check it out.

I've always liked the scene because "We would be honored, if you would join us." isn't just evil... it's SARCASTIC. It's the only time we see Vader just straight be a dick.

Todd Browning's 1931 "Dracula" is a film that, to put it mildly, is iconic almost by default. As a film, it is perhaps the dullest and most pedestrian of the 'classic' movie monsters, Lugosi's charisma saving many moments that would otherwise have been painfull.

Despite a few moments of sheer brilliance at the beginnig, it exudes mediocrity in many forms, from camera set up, to pacing. It also does not have a score.

My goal would be to make the second half of the film less of a drawing room mystery and more of a horror film on par with the rest of the Universal Canon.

My resources:

"Mexican" Dracula- The Spanish language version of the film has several sequences that are marked improvements. In shots wide enough to get away with it, I may substitute shots of the similar looking Carlos Villarias for Lugosi if the shot is more atmosphereic. I will be replacing the Browning armadillos (mandated by the censors at the time) with the shots of actual rats from the Mexican Dracula. It's half an hour longer than the English language version.

"Ship at Sea"- Due to the low budget, shots of the ship "Demeter" are recycled from an old silent, and are a different framerate than the rest of the film. It's cheap and it shows. I will try to find a better series of shots of a ship in a storm.

Score- (I will not consider the atrocius Phillip Glass score). Using the opening credits "Swan Lake" as a starter, I plan to utilize more of "Swan Lake" and probably some cues stolen from other horror films of the era.

"Mark of the Vampire" "Return of the Vampire"- Two Lugosi vampire films. There might be a few moments in each of these of use.

"Abbott and Costello meet Frankenstien" The only other film Lugosi played Dracula in, but he's 13 years older and noticably larger. I don't know if there's anything of use.

This film has LOTS of people talking about awesome things that happened off camera. I'm going to scoure all the classic horror/chiller films of the era for bits an peices to steal. Wolves, foggy streets, rats, etc.

When one rips a CD and the computer automatically adds the artist/album, etc, where does that information come from?

I ask because I jst ripped an audiobook on history, but instead of artist/album I got a series of mispelled swear words and racial slurs for 'album' and 'artist' in the tags.

Very odd.

doubleofive said:

TheBoost said:

Ripplin said:

  it must have some supercomputer that scans the ground around it all the time...

 You mean like C3-PO must have in order to demonstrate bipedal motion?

You mean, they have eyes? ;-)

 Speakinga s the father of a 7 month old, walking on two legs is ridiculously complicated.

Ripplin said:

 

But seriously, where do y'alls think that the AT-ST is more impractical; Hoth or Endor? :p Tripping on logs and Ewoks, or tripping on chunks of ice and cracks in the ground? Sure they have big feet, but blimey, it must have some supercomputer that scans the ground around it all the time...

 You mean like C3-PO must have in order to demonstrate bipedal motion?

To ramble more on the ATST, I like them becasue they make the battle seem larger, more interesting. We don't need complicated explanations of their use and tactics. Just a glimpse of them, and our imagination fills in the rest. Just that little touch adds depth the Star Wars universe

I dig it. Looks sharp.

New years day, TheBoost (me) hosts a marathon all 6 Star Wars in a day party.

Having just recently moved, this is both my housewarming party, and a chane to introduce a batch of old chums and their kids to "Revisited." (I'll also be substituting the Phantom Editors edits into the marathon).

If anyone's near Mecca california Jan 1st, pop on by and have some burgers, blue milk, and enjoy the saga.

Double cases.

PhantomMenace/Phantom Edit

Attack of Clones/Attack of Phantom

ROTS/ROTS extras

SW:GOUT /SW:R

ESB GOUT/ESB SE

ROTJ GOUT/ROTJ SE

The Ewok movies and Musical Journey are in a DVD wallett, and that's all I own.

In fact, the only movies I have on a shelf at the 6 Star Wars, my deluxe LOTRs, Starship Troopers, and Wrestlemanias 19-24.

adywan said:

Jeyl said:

Eliminate the AT-STs? That doesn't make much sense. They may be in only two shots, but it sounds like you're deleting them for deletion's sake. The Empire does have 'variety' in their forces. 

Why doesn't it make sense? Check the scene where you see the one walking in the background after Luke has fallen from the AT-AT. Where did it disappear to? you should see it in the following shots but it just mysteriously vanishes. So i'm not just deleting them for deletions sake, as you put it. Agreed i may be able to keep the one shot earlier on, but change it height, but the one with Luke has to go for continuity sake

 I understand your desire for continuity, but I sure hope at least one of the chicken walkers can stay, for no better reason than I've always been fond of them.

Darth Editous said:You're right that the colours on the DVD are awful, but unless everything in a space is neutrally coloured, and the lights are all identical, nothing will be perfectly grey. Light bounces around all the over the place (moon landing deniers, I'm talking to you! ;) ) It's often an incredibly subtle effect, but when it's gone your brain knows - there's something about that pic that just makes me squint.

 I'm going to agree with DE on this one. If SW:R had a technical flaw, it's the "Sky Captain" effect with the perfectly monochrome backgrounds.

On the otherhand, it's a very minor quibble, doesn't happen often, and IMHO only noticeable when you're looking at the backgrounds, which in a movie like Star Wars, isn't very often. I'd much rather have it than the "Underworld" style ultra-blue tint.

I'm going through the Ewok movies and capturing any clear Ewokeese that sounds less cute/more threatening than what is in ROTJ.

Any ideas on how best to share these sound files with the forum?

skyjedi2005 said:

Have you read the lensman series by E.E. "doc" smith? 

 I tried that, and was bored to tears a hundred pages in, struggled a bit further, and finallay collapsed into a heat from exposition-exhaustion.

Perhpas their influence is mighty, but they didn't seem to age well.

If the reason for a boycott is based on the perception that they would not enjoy the entertainment offered, then it is not a boycott. Whether it be because they are so in love with TOS they couldn't handle the reboot, of if they think the Spock/Uhura romance ruins the film.

The Montgomery Bus Boycott was not based on the lack of bus-quality, or the readilly available better options. Any so-called "Star Trek" boycott is.

Some people chose not to see "Star Trek" and some people chose not to see "Meet Dave" with Eddie Murphy. If the reason is because they don't think the movie is worth seeing (which, expressed at great length, is what most TOS 'boycotters' seem to say), then calling it a boycott renders the term completely menaningless.

If you would otherwise purchase the PT, but aren't out of protest for Lucas's actions, that might be called a boycott. If you don't want to purchase the PT and don't, that's not a boycott.

One might organize a boycott of Twilight because it promotes violence against women.

One cannot organize a boycott of Twilight because it's not worth seeing. Although one might try to persuade people to your opinion, if they joined you they still would not be boycotters.

People not seeing movies they don't want to see is how the entertainment industry works. A boycott as a political tool is by definition a purposeful change from the normal working of that industry.

thecolorsblend said:

  

Like Superman, I think it would be swell if Star Wars had a seperate continuity for each property.

I do too but, again, that's not how movie-based franchises work.  Everything serves the movies.  Books and such are never (or rarely) treated as "adaptations".  "Extension" seems to be the watch word. 

 

Be careful what you wish for.  Between saga fans vs. OOT fans, prequel lovers vs. prequel bashers, weirdos like me who dig on the prequels but also prefer the OOT over the SE/2004, etc, I'd say that SW's fanbase is just about fractured enough.

 

 I see where you're comng from, but I'm not sure there is another movie based franchise that's comparable to "Star Wars" in terms of the volume, longevity, or popularity of the franchise materials built around it.

Multiple smash hit comics, best selling game after best selling game (including several that added signifantly to the mythos rather than be based on the films), dozens of bestseller novels, a hit TV show, and a holiday special.

I can't think of another film+media franchise that even comes close to touching the EU.

Warbler said:

while I'm not boycotting the new film, I can sympathize with those that do.   I'm sure many who do, understand that they will have no real impact and just doing it for the principle of it.  I'm still refusing to give Lucas any of my money.  I know it won't have an impact, but I'm doing it anyway. 

As for the new Trek,  the only real problem I have with it is the romance between Spock and Uhura.  That is just wrong unvulcan-like.   Whatever happened to being totally logical and unemotional?

 

 Not attacking you, but I really loathe the use of the word 'boycott' in this light.

One cannot boycott an entertainment property based on the percieved quality of that product. That is just chosing not to see it based on personal opinion. The entertainment industry is built on people making that choice every day about every product. No one boycotted "Beethoven 4," most just chose not to see it.

If "Star Trek" the movie appealed to certain TOS fans, but they refused to see it because Chris Pine was a Nazi war criminal, that could be termed a 'boycott.'

"I'm refusing to see a movie I don't want to see!" is not a boycott.

ChainsawAsh said:

2001: A Space Odyssey -> 2010.

A lot of people hate 2010, which saddens me.  It's a very good film with very good ideas, it's just so radically different from 2001 that people immediately compare the two, and, of course, 2010 is inferior.  But it's still a good film!

 I agree. 2010 is underratted by comparison to 2001.

2010 is plot driven and fairly linear. I think it succeeds admirably at what it attempts.

xhonzi said:

And I guess along those lines... Hobbit -> LotR.

 I guess I can see your point, but LOTR grows from and deepens the Hobbit in a thematically similar (although admitedly wildly different in tone and style) story in the same setting.

"Riddick" is hardly recognizable as the same fictional universe as "Pitch Black."

Its like if the 1960s Batman show and "The Dark Knight"were seen as sequals. Same characters, and they seem to have some relation, but the connection is extremely hard to follow.

"Cat People"

A brilliant, noirishish, thriller/horror film with ambiguous supernatural elements, and psycho-sexual undertones. And lots of cats.

"Curse of the Cat People"

A brilliant, fantastical, beautiful childs fantasy about lonliness and imagination. And no cats.

Both masterpeices, and "Curse" is a direct chronological sequal with returning characters, but the films are as different as they can be in every respect.

Vaderisnothayden said:

TheBoost said:

 

 "Star Wars is an entertainment property. Every single aspect of it exists to please fans,"

Just because something's an entertainment property doesn't mean every single aspect exists to please fans. Do you really think the SE exists to please fans? Or the treatment the OOT gets?

 

The SE of Star Wars, a film that had already had two wide relases and had been available on video for 14 years made almost $200 million. It apparently please a few people.

As for the OOT, as much as I disagre with LFL on this one, it seems backwards to blame a franchise for what is doesn't do. They also haven't made a Sequal Trilogy or a new Lite-Brite set in years. There are probably people not pleased by either of those.

skyjedi2005 said:

Its a reboot yet it has Leonard Nimoy in it, lol.  Like they wanted a new audience but wanted the old to stay too to make double the money, did not work in any case original series fans are boycotting the jj franchise.

 It must be a pretty intense boycott. I bet that TOS fans refusing to see it (or at least admit to seeing it) are the reason that flick made slightly less than $400 million.