bad_karma24

User Group: Members
Join date: 28-Mar-2004
Last activity: 13-Jun-2025
Posts: 687

Post History

Post: #116689
Topic: Why Direct?
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/116689/action/topic#116689
Time: 19-Jun-2005 5:31 PM

Quote
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
I think it's because Lucas is bascially a control freak and wanted as much say in his film as possible.

I believe that's about it. He was supposedly very upset at not being able to control Empire (maybe he was jealous that it performed better than Star Wars?). When it came to ROTJ, as far as I've heard he was pretty much the director. Marquand really didn't have much say, all he did was get thrown out of AT-STs

Post: #116574
Topic: Ultimate/Archival Editions of the OT
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/116574/action/topic#116574
Time: 19-Jun-2005 8:23 AM

I'm wondering where Vader and Palpatine would fit into at the end of ANH, as well as Fett escaping the Sarclacc, as well as the relevence each has to the story line. Oh wait, they don't....

If you want to add deleted scenes go ahead, I especially dig the Bigg scenes as it makes Bigg's death kind of weird to the uneducated viewer. But new scenes entirely? They tried it, doesn't work. AS for special effects, that I welcome. I really see nothing wrong with removing garbage mattes and black lines, as they were never intended to be there in the first place.

Post: #116285
Topic: Reasons why the O-OT is better than the SE
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/116285/action/topic#116285
Time: 17-Jun-2005 5:58 PM

Agreed... born in 87 and can't stand the new ones.

Post: #116019
Topic: ROTS: The Droids...
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/116019/action/topic#116019
Time: 16-Jun-2005 9:29 PM

He also never really needed them in the OT as well. Also, Artoo was serving on the Tantive IV (as we are meant to understand) for the time between ROTS and ANH. Since he would have had no need for boosters on a ship such as that, they might have been removed by Antilles.

And come on guys, Star Wars is not the first series of films to have plot holes. Terminator, Back to the Future, Indiana Jones, etc. They do not have plot holes because Lucas is an idiot (which he is), they have plot holes simply because that's the way things happen.

Post: #115598
Topic: Reasons why the O-OT is better than the SE
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/115598/action/topic#115598
Time: 15-Jun-2005 10:47 PM

I was watching an interview with Pete Jackson, and he was talking about how the SFX/stories have an arc that swings back and forth. Right now, the arc is swinging back more towards the story side, as having these huge FX doesn't really make a good movie, and audiences can see through it (IE, Alexander). Right now we're seeing a lot more dialogue intensive films becoming more mainstream, such as Sideways and Finding Neverland. Just my two cents.

On another point, I rather enjoy mindless summer blockbusters. They're a lot of fun, and some of them are actually fairly well done.

Post: #113857
Topic: Why is it that the Sith...
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/113857/action/topic#113857
Time: 10-Jun-2005 10:22 AM

Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
That's a pretty resonable answer, although both Qui-Gon and Anakin were burned, and did not disapear at the moment they are killed. Perhaps since they discovered it "by themselves", without anyone telling them, they didn't actually had their bodies disapear but did turn into spirits. Or maybe they were burned alive

To be fair, we don't really know if Anakin himself was burned. It have just been the armor...

Post: #109987
Topic: How to Burn to DVD?
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/109987/action/topic#109987
Time: 29-May-2005 4:33 PM

In order to burn the DVDs, all you do is create a second folder, named "AUDIO_TS" (you should already have the video folder), and drop both of them on a blank DVD (you're not making a "DVD" so to speak, you're making a data disc).

Post: #107642
Topic: Who thinks that George Lucas will release the OOT?
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/107642/action/topic#107642
Time: 22-May-2005 3:03 PM

First off, welcome to the board WhiteKnight!

Secondly, I don't follow your line of reasoning. Are you suggesting that Fox would be sued because they marketed the Faces edition as the last original release? How does that work? Who would sue them and why?

Post: #107201
Topic: Ep. III: Focus on tracked music
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/107201/action/topic#107201
Time: 20-May-2005 10:32 PM

I second that. The score for the Order 66 scene was just awesome.

Post: #93974
Topic: I'm sorry, but I must say this... screw this forum, and screw the entertainment industry
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/93974/action/topic#93974
Time: 20-Feb-2005 11:06 AM

Quote

And what, exactly, do you base this on? Ralph Bakshi did an LOTR movie that was more-or-less an accurate adaptation. Granted, his only covers up to the Battle of Helm's Deep (he ran out of money before he could finish it) but it told the story (and told it well, in my opinion) in about the same length of time it takes to watch Peter Jackson's first LOTR movie.

Secondly, most of the reason the books are so long is because of Tolkien's detailed descriptions, and because of dialogue. In a visual medium, the length of both would be drastically reduced--after all, it's much quicker to SHOW people a vivid landscape than it is to tell them about it, and generally when you hear people actually talking, it's much faster than reading them on a page.

There is, simply put, no basis for the "it would've been a 30 hour movie" claim.

LOTR would have been a lot longer than 30 hours I'm sure. It was estimated that Gone With the Wind, which is about the same length as LOTR (though granted written differently) would have taken 168 hours or so. There is so much in the books that it would have taken a similar amount of time to put it all to film.

Oh, and Bakshi's cartoon was terrible. It was much less accurate than Jackson's version, even if Jackson did change things for his films.

Post: #93096
Topic: Arthur Miller 1915-2005
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/93096/action/topic#93096
Time: 12-Feb-2005 7:44 AM

Funny thing was I was just talking about him yesterday too.

I have a syndrome where famous people tend to die when I'm camping. It's already happened to Reagen and Brando.

Post: #91753
Topic: MGM's DVD Class Action Settlement
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/91753/action/topic#91753
Time: 3-Feb-2005 11:34 AM

Quote
Originally posted by: GundarkHunter
When was the last time you watched a 1.66:1 anamorphic image on a 16:9 display? Mine was last week @ Costco, and the pillarboxing (what they call the black bars at the sides) was clearly visible.

The one you saw at Costco might have been calibrated to eliminate (or lessen) overscanning. My 16:9 display has no such pillarboxing.

Post: #91293
Topic: NFL SuperBowl
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/91293/action/topic#91293
Time: 1-Feb-2005 2:08 PM

I'd say the Eagles.

It also happens to be on my 18th B-Day! Yes! Best birthday party ever... haha.

Post: #91158
Topic: Firefox browser
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/91158/action/topic#91158
Time: 1-Feb-2005 4:23 AM

I really haven't had a problem so far. Go Firefox!

Post: #91076
Topic: MGM's DVD Class Action Settlement
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/91076/action/topic#91076
Time: 31-Jan-2005 2:56 PM

Quote
Originally posted by: DanielB
Quote
Originally posted by: bad_karma24
Quote
Originally posted by: DanielB
Quote
Criterion's DVD was released before the company was doing anamorphic widescreen transfers, so 1.66:1 was used at director Paul Verhoeven's request.
Not entirely accurate. Their DVD is a direct copy of their LD, since they used the same source material, and did not remaster for the DVD, of course it's non-anamorphic (which is GOOD because it's 1.66:1).
Why is that good? I'd take anamorphic enhancement over non-enhanced material (unless it's fullframe)
It's good because the aspect ratio (1.66:1) cannot be presented through anamorphic encoding. Your TV (or computer) will remove the top and bottom of the picture and leave you with a 1.78:1 (16:9) ratio. You have to think of 1.66:1 as full-frame, or being close to it anyway.

If it was anamorphic you'd have to choose between watching it anamorphic, but cropped to 1.78:1 - or watching it non-anamorphic with those awful digital jaggies you get from removing every fifth line. The increase in resolution is not enough to justify that. -and I might add that PC's will force you to watch only the 16:9 area, since the players consider everything outside of this to be useless information they can just repleace with solid black boarders.

Uh... no. Watch the Lion King. It's 1.66 and anamorphically enhanced, as is the new Dr. Strangelove. They simply box off the left and right sides. But because of overscan it's not even noticeable anyway. I always zoom my 1.66 DVDs in (like Barry Lyndon), because you're not really losing much. Even 1.85:1 gets cut off a bit.

Post: #90931
Topic: MGM's DVD Class Action Settlement
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/90931/action/topic#90931
Time: 31-Jan-2005 4:26 AM

Quote
Originally posted by: DanielB
Quote
Criterion's DVD was released before the company was doing anamorphic widescreen transfers, so 1.66:1 was used at director Paul Verhoeven's request.
Not entirely accurate. Their DVD is a direct copy of their LD, since they used the same source material, and did not remaster for the DVD, of course it's non-anamorphic (which is GOOD because it's 1.66:1).

Why is that good? I'd take anamorphic enhancement over non-enhanced material (unless it's fullframe)

Post: #90879
Topic: Why Hayden's acting in ROTJ was bad...
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/90879/action/topic#90879
Time: 30-Jan-2005 6:32 PM

Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Quote
Originally posted by: bad_karma24
And at least he realizes that some of the criticism is valid against him. To be honest, I have a newfound respect for this guy. He's just a tool being used Lucas.

Hitchcock dispised actors and used them as tools too, and his movies were good. What's wrong with GL?

Hitchcock knew how to make a good film. Lucas doesn't. "Nuff said.

Post: #90878
Topic: MGM's DVD Class Action Settlement
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/90878/action/topic#90878
Time: 30-Jan-2005 6:30 PM

God, I hate people sometimes.

Post: #90789
Topic: Why Hayden's acting in ROTJ was bad...
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/90789/action/topic#90789
Time: 30-Jan-2005 9:54 AM

And at least he realizes that some of the criticism is valid against him. To be honest, I have a newfound respect for this guy. He's just a tool being used Lucas.

Post: #90788
Topic: MGM's DVD Class Action Settlement
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/90788/action/topic#90788
Time: 30-Jan-2005 9:52 AM

Quote
Originally posted by: Warbler
except that whatever the directer intends, is not always the best thing. That's why OT.com exists.

Lucas would be the minority in the minority.

Post: #90697
Topic: MagnoliaFan Edits: Ep I "Balance Of The Force", and Ep II "The Clone War" (Released)
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/90697/action/topic#90697
Time: 29-Jan-2005 8:54 PM

Was there any reason for the pan up in the first place?

Post: #90686
Topic: MGM's DVD Class Action Settlement
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/90686/action/topic#90686
Time: 29-Jan-2005 12:39 PM

Quote
Originally posted by: Warbler
Quote
Originally posted by: bad_karma24
Still, that doesn't change the fact that MGM was right to lie about it.

They were RIGHT to lie? They were RIGHT?!?!! Please explain.

Sorry, got my phrasing a bit mixed up. I meant to say that they were wrong to lie... but I'm obviously not an English major...

Quote
That compares 1.33:1 to 1.85:1, it would look a bit different for 2.53:1. Either way the widescreen version is the intended way.

No, it's not. It's whatever the director intends.

Post: #90566
Topic: MGM's DVD Class Action Settlement
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/90566/action/topic#90566
Time: 28-Jan-2005 12:02 PM

Quote
Originally posted by: Darth Simon
I understand that some films are shot in a 1.33:1 ratio with the intention of cropping the top and bottom for the theatrical release (so technically while picture is lost it is picture that the director never intended you to see)

the problem i see is then, when this movie is put into a pan and scan ratio the sides are still getting cut off of the film, just as if an anamorphic movie is done in pan and scan, correct?

so then, if they then cut off more picture onthe top and bottom to make a 'widescreen' version of it (which is the impression i got from this) then you are being royal screwed as far as how much of the movie you are not seeing (pan & scan looses picture, but then widescreen is loosing even more picture)

and this seems to be the case because I remember in Spaceballs when the princess is being threatened with a nose job and they hold up the picture of her old nose you see it. Everytime i watched my dvd (in widescreen) the nose is always cut off and im like, im sure ive seen this movie with the full nose. First that should have been scanned over to so that you see the nose because it defeats the whole point of showing the picture if you cant see the nose.

I may be incorrect about this scene, but if my memory serves me correctly this is the case and since i cant check till i get home either someone else that can check one of these titles for a similar situation (or specifically Spaceballs) or can at least remember if her old nose was ever fully shown, then im going to go under the presumption that this is the case.

-Darth Simon

That's not really the case though. They are not pan and scanning it, then cutting it down to widescreen. They cut off the top and bottom from the original full-frame negative.

As I understand it, the scene in Spaceballs is either

A) Misframed
B) The cutting off is a joke, as it is meant to be extended off the screen into the next theater (if you were in a theater of course)

Of both reasons I'm sure A is the most likely reason. BTTF was misframed as well, and is one of the popular ones.

Post: #90525
Topic: MGM's DVD Class Action Settlement
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/90525/action/topic#90525
Time: 28-Jan-2005 4:23 AM

This is half true. These films, while shot in the 1.33:1 ratio, were meant to have the tops and bottoms cut off for the widescreen version. Yes, you get less of a picture, but its what the director intends. Still, that doesn't change the fact that MGM was right to lie about it.

Post: #90244
Topic: Threepio or Artoo, which droid would YOU rather have?
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/90244/action/topic#90244
Time: 26-Jan-2005 6:18 PM

Probably R2. More uses, though my house couldn't have any stairs