Doh, silly me. It is indeed.
Got a couple of Black Friday deals that I've been picking through,
Red Dead Redemption
I played Revolver on the PS2 years ago and this is easily the game they were trying to make back then. If it's a historical game then I'm usually all in, but here the story was good, the gameplay simple enough to be mastered yet tough enough to maintain interest and the replay value near excellent as I feel myself wanting to go through again on hard difficulty.
And the little references to classic Westerns was a very nice touch. Things like having an automatic similar to Pike's or being able to wear a poncho not unlike a man fond of cheroots.
Absolutely recommended. 4/4
But the Undead game is admittedly a bit freaky.
I've played World at War for years but never got around to COD4. Now I see why. For some reason I just don't enjoy playing Modern Warfare, the control feels off or perhaps I was just spoiled by the WWII sequel. ;)
Harmy said:
The only thing I found is this:
That's the trailer I immediately thought of after seeing the 35mm restored print. It looked as if they tried to match that which was always brilliantly saturated. Of course, is this how the film originally looked? We have no idea. To my eyes the new version didn't feel right, and some of the work done was visible.
So both the color timing and the soundmix are still unknowns as to original theatrical presentation.
The biggest thing is how in the heck did Douglas Slocombe shoot without a light meter? ;)
Thanks for the tweak comparison you_too, it makes for an interesting what-if, but on TOD it doesn't match the cinematography style and undermines it a bit. I have always loved the use of darkness and shadow in that film that at least visually differentiates the film from the others.
Ric 2.0
Air guitar is absolutely fantastic when you're doing it and silly 5 minutes later when Live at Leeds is over and your air SG is smashed into absolute oblivion.
zombie84 said:
Tyrphanax said:
Never Say Never Again. Oh yes. Connery's final goodbye to Bond. He's old. The times have changed (compared to Thunderball) it all feels very out-of-place, but it's still pretty well Bond. Personally, I prefer Tunderball to Never Say Never Again; it's a cooler film, though we do get some neat video game action with Never Say Never Again, I just can't warm up to its take on Largo who just comes off as "meh" and psychotic compared to Thunderball's more suave and controlled take. SPECTRE isn't as interesting, either, though their bomb plot is slightly more grand than just blowing up Florida or whatever (though the plan to steal it is far more outlandish and silly), and I preferred hiding Blofeld's face and making him more mysterious; from my point of view, he started to get more and more lame as we saw more and more of him. Fatima Blush is an interesting henchwoman, and we'll see her type at least once more later on in a more official film. Domino is just kind of there and doesn't feel as human as Thunderball's version. It's still a good film, though I do wish the had been able to swing the Roger Moore cameo for the ending.
I have feeling I am maybe just an Irvin Kershner fanboy, but I feel like this is one of the better Bond films ever made. Yeah. I'm not a huge Bond fan, so take that as you will. But this film is, in my opinion, every bit as clever and witty as the Connery classics, except it has the better taste to not take itself too seriously and have fun with the idea of an older Bond. Sean Connery looks like he is enjoying himself, at least. Not the best film ever made or anything, but when I watch this film I feel like the people making it were having fun. It has a bad rep with some people, but compared to shit like Moonraker this looks like genius. It has a certain silliness that reminds me of some of the better Roger Moore entries.
This brings up the main point that lured Connery back in initially. This was to be an older Bond, one who was out of step with the modern and relatively ineffective espionage world. Through slightly more humorous interactions this more seasoned 007 would still manage to avert disaster again but with more of a twinkle in the eye and the comfort of greater years.
If Connery has something challenging, some new aspect to the part to play with then he's off before the starting gate chomping at the bit. This has always been a major incentive and is why he chose so many odd parts after shaking off Bond finally in the late 60's/early 70's. Just look at all the great performances he gave in his films with Sidney Lumet.
But of course, then you had Jack Schwartzman wanting all kinds of different things, the production troubles, the studio's desires and ultimately the script and every bit of the good ideas that were initially there became buried a bit...and then dialed back a bit there...and a bit more and more so eventually you had to read deeply into context to really get into any of the plotting or characterization going on. Connery, Brandauer, Atkinson and Carrerra are the only actors who aren't sleepwalking or ineffective.
You're absolutely right to single out Kersh Zombie, because he's the only reason why the film was ever finished or that it makes any sense at all! Sadly, the whole thing had a bit of the Charles Feldman/Casino Royale production horrors going on. Even Slocombe isn't able to do very much with the rather drab sets and color palette.
Everything said it isn't a bad film, it has it's moments thanks largely to Sean who felt he had something new to bring after being promised a new direction, but it doesn't hold a candle to any of the 16 original EoN films. It possibly could have but in addition to all the problems it also hasn't dated very well.
And yes, I find Moonraker to be unjustly ridiculed. Where did all the hate come from exactly? When I was growing up everyone unjustfully loathed The Man with the Golden Gun. I think Moonraker is an overall stronger film than For Your Eyes Only, and I prefer Bond more realistic. If you could remove the goofy elements all it is is a slightly more tired and gravitating to audience desires remake of Spy which was a remake of You Only Live Twice's basic plot.
Bingowings said:
I like Moonraker, it's silly but it's good silly.
I agree with this on the silliness aspect. Though it is gratingly out of place, it was done with the intent of pleasing the entire 1979 audience and maintains heart. But that double-taking pigeon.....ugh!
Christopher Wood appeared to have fun with his two Bond scripts, but on his second he amped up all of the humor around Bond's world and Bond's relation to that said world and it all becomes a little tiresome. Bond knows everything about everything, he does not falter etc. But the initial half to three quarter point actually belies Wood's attention to reality in that 007 does some actual spying and uses his brain to get him out of deadly situations in a manner usually reserved for the early Connery era. In his novelizations for these two films (I only have Spy, but I'm nearly positive Moonraker is the same way) Wood writes the story somewhat differently and in almost a pure Fleming style. Just imagine a Fleming Bond novel based on the film script and you wouldn't be too far off.
zombie84 said:
Maybe. To be fair it's been 10 years since I've seen 90% of the Bond films. NSNA I saw recently.
No problem, admittedly I find it hard to go two months without a complete run through. Probably when I got my Bondian residence card...
SilverWook said:
I enjoyed AVTAK a lot more revisiting it on the UE DVD. I think my initial negative reaction to it all those years ago was, "You killed Steed! You bastards!" Honor Blackman is the only Avengers alum to make it out of a Bond movie alive. ;)
It was probably too soon for a movie to have another giant mine set.
Oh Lord, Tibett! What the devil have you done with my socks? The best thing in the film after Walken's phenomenal Zorin is the by-play between Moore and Macnee. This was my introduction to the charming bowler hatted twinkling eyed Steed, and I still hate that he exits the film so early. Huge loss of energy that takes ages to partially recover.
Tyrphanax said:
So. Dalton. When I first got into Bond, it took me ages to see Dalton's films. I only saw a few Connerys and Moores. When I finally got around to seeing his films, I'd already read some of the books, and I found that Dalton played a very adequate book Bond, but didn't sacrifice the feel of the films too much.
The Living Daylights is a pretty cool film. You can certainly tell at times that it was originally written as a Moore film, but it still retains the harder edge that Dalton brought to the series. I love the opening shots, because I always love seeing other Double Ohs, though of course none of them ever live up to Bond's high standards (save one). This is also the only Bond film with only one Bond girl, if I'm not mistaken (I guess there's the girl on the boat at the beginning, though); Kara is an okay girl, I suppose... she doesn't really do that much and kinda just waits around for stuff to happen to her until she runs off to save James at the airfield at the end which just seems out of character for her. Rhys-Davies is great as Pushkin; and there's really palpable tension in the scene with him and Bond in the hotel room. Georgi is a pretty complex and interesting character as well with the whole double-reverse-defection thing going on; he goes from "oh boy one of these goofy characters, ugh" to a brilliant criminal mastermind during the course of the film, which I like. Necros is of course our Red Grant for this film. And Joe Don Baker (Mitchell!) as Whitaker was another of those characters that was hard to get over considering he comes back as Jack Wade later on. Saunders I always feel bad for; he was finally getting the hand of things at the end, too. I never was a big fan of the Aston Martin they used, but it didn't look as bad as it used to this time around. The Mujahideen are a cool angle, the airplane cargo fight is a cool one, and the cello sled is good times. Also has a sweet 80's music theme by a-Ha.
License to Kill is one of my favourites. I love the more personal, "departure" Bonds like OHMSS and License to Kill because they're different than the same-old-same-old Bond formula, and I feel like they're really some of the few films that Bond does any real character development in; in OHMSS, he learned he can't ever be anything but 007 of MI6, and in License to Kill, he attacks M, goes rogue on a vendetta; and yet they still manage to do it without completely alienating the Bond feel (in my view) there's still cars, gadgets, allies, chases, henchmen, et cetera, all the "Bondian Elements". This one really puts a spotlight on Bond's misogyny, which is an interesting angle. Pam is a Bond girl who also feels like she's capable and smart (but they go a bit far in proving she's "still feminine" with her out-of-character pining for Bond), Q gets to put on his field agent pants as he goes "rogue" himself to help Bond (and also seems to have a disregard for his own equipment as he chucks the broom radio into the bushes). Dalton gets the emotion of the Leiters' attack over well (though Felix seems a bit chipper in the phone call at the end of the film, all things considered) Sanchez is cool and dangerous and plays the quintessential drug lord, Benicio del Toro is insane and dangerous and a neat henchman. Krest is slimy and weird as he should be, and having grown up fishing I could always tell the "maggots" were lures. I always feel bad for Sharkey, but I always almost cheer when Bond gets revenge for him, too. Wayne Newton makes a good cameo, and Lupe provides some scenery and intel but not much else. The title song is pretty great, and is a nice throwback to older Bond songs (especially thanks to the Goldfinger inspiration) though I wonder what Clapton's version was like.
Well these are getting longer, I guess... Oh well. I should start formatting them into paragraphs, but no.
Goodbye, Dalton. On to Brosnan!
TLD can be seen from many points of view. There are the leftover Moore elements, the bits for the unknown "replacement" actor, the parts that were for Brosnan and all three were re-tooled for Dalton and redrafted. It takes a few views to really get into this and many other aspects but at some point it struck me at just how good of a film it was. For a while I bought into the criticisms of it being disjointed and having both a weak female lead and villains, but the key is that it balances between the world of cinematic espionage and the real world of 1987. With that in mind everything becomes clearer.
LTK is a film that should be played on the largest screen possible with the sound maximized. It is a dirtier smaller film that if you can forget about the debts to late 80's action franchises and production deficits, actually plays very damn well. In fact, so much so that it is easily the last fully enjoyable Bond to be produced. (Sitting in Skyfail's credits had me wishing that there had just been a re-release of LTK) the motivation is great but not too well defined. It should have been fleshed more in order to fully justify Bond's resignation of what has essentially become his life's purpose. Dalton still plays it perfectly because his insubordination and rebellion was already present however checked in TLD. The film makes perfect sense when the battered Dalton lets out that sigh in the desert, one of the few times Fleming's Bond has ever appeared on-screen in his truest from.
SilverWook said:
Having rewatched LTK recently, I suspect Felix being so "chipper" at the end is due to the amount of painkillers he's probably on. ;)
That's good! To me he sounds exactly as he does when on the phone with Moore's Bond arriving in NYC for lunch early on in LALD!
Tobar said:
Die Hard (1988)
Been a while since I'd last seen this. Great film, really solid. Now I know I'll end up watching The Detective and reading the books.
Just won the THX LD, so I know this Christmas will get a bit...loud!
LMS:
Stardust Memories
This is one of Woody Allen's films that seems to be a bit more of a self-indulgent side project and I can't help but enjoy it for some reason. Like Shadows and Fog, I just rather like it but can't point to much of anything as to say why. It is almost his response to 8 1/2, but of course with his characteristic spin on the plot. "We especially like your early funny movies." 3 balls out of 4. But what a terrible DVD. Terrible!
skyjedi2005 said:
I wonder what the state of the actual original camera negatives for American Graffiti and THX 1138 are in.
I mean we know they took the star wars negative out in 93 or 94 and found out it had only about 60% of its original colors left or something like that.
Graffiti and THX were not effects heavy films.
So they probably did not have the problem of the bad color reversal stock. But they were still made in the era that films were shot are now known to be at risk because of the bad Eastman Kodak stock.
I mean what did they send up to Lowry, i don't think it was the o-negs. Maybe a generation later than that?
Not to derail the thread or anything but i wonder just how much grain is on o-negs, and how much color fade or if they are even in the Lucasfilm archives like Willow, Indiana jones and the 4 star wars films.
Or if they are in Universals and Warner's vault holdings. I do know that USC has the negatives or at least dupe negs of Lucas student films and he only has copies at Skywalker since USC owns them.
THX is the outsider being Techniscope. If not properly stored these films can go baaaaad very very fast. This is why there have been so many different MGM and Italian restorations of the Leone westerns. Somehow, I don't see Warner doing anything with THX besides sticking it on the shelf so there still should be some decent vault elements out there not in LFL, perhaps also even of the theatrical recut.
TServo2049 said:
Pinocchio had a similar - they used the cels as reference, and "flattened" a lot of the moody lighting effects, like the candlelight in Gepetto's workshop. The 1999 DVD was the last time they ever looked anything near accurate.
Have the restoration team never seen the color test wedges from Snow White? The ones that have been included on every special edition on LD, DVD and BD for the last 20 years? If you look at them, it will be plainly obvious that the cels don't tell the whole story.
Flattened is a good description. I've never been a huge Disney fan but I wanted to cry when I saw what the new master turned out like.
Guess that makes up for the AVTAK quake removal? ;)
Darn it, did they ever release corrected SE discs? Go figure.
Thanks for the photo jerlgrain that's the exact thing I noticed previously.
The primary reason for using IP and higher generation sources is to get the cleanest transfer possible to begin with, and the one closest possible to the o-neg. I agree with you that the theatrical should be kept in mind always, and to be perfectly honest If I had my way there would also be a comparison scan of a well-kept theatrical print for extreme reference, as to fully match the original color timing and presentation as possible.
The color timing is what is typically lost in transfers, and without the theatrical in mind there's no chance of fully replicating it. The best example of doing it correctly I can think of is the Criterion Spartacus, for which Robert Harris and the colorist used specific multi-frame references from the 1991 restoration to hand color the DVD master in order to properly preserve the film. Universal scrapped all this for their Blu-ray in addition to heavy image manipulation.
With a pristine release print, it is possible to make a great master and release. What you have to deal with is a greater chance of deterioration, generational loss, improper printing or anything else that could have arisen in the printing process. Additionally you are stuck with the print audio instead of higher generation materials, such as the audio masters.
You know, I understand and agree with the numbers that are continually posted, with a standard print starting at 2-4K and then degrading form there but truth be told I have never seen a home disc or digital print look better than 35mm no matter the condition. I've seen the poorly kept only surviving MGM copy of For a Few Dollars More and that is stupendously towering over the DVD/BD. Even all-digital productions printed back to film look better than their all-digital counterparts. Sure you may be able to remove almost every imperfection for a BD master but these eyes it is not the same.
I guess my overall case in point would be my preferred version of Psycho. I've watched the film on everything from VHS to film easily over 50 times throughout my life, sometimes going scene or shot by shot. And now with the fantastically detailed BD....I still prefer the open matte 16mm reduction. Wow, despite the wear and tear talk about razor sharp detail! And on that point, perhaps the sharpest film I've ever seen is Touch of Evil, and the restored cut in 35mm is something to behold.
But I admit to being a crazy celluloid nut.
And the digital TPM being better? IIRC they had some huge issues with getting the digital systems to work properly in 1999 and even then the resolution was quite inferior.
Must...resist....urge...to..make..Colt 45...joke...
Tyrphanax said:
I also know that in one of the single best Star Wars books I have ever read, The Life and Legend of Obi-Wan Kenobi, Luke basically finds Ben's memoirs and his accounts of everything that took place in the prequels, Jedi histories, all that good stuff.
Hmm..I always wanted to read that. Wyndham wrote some pretty good SW material, despite it usually being for kids only. Sadly some of the Scholastic material is usually truer to the source than most of the EU.
SilverWook said:
George might actually have a good time without the stress of directing, and worrying about the money side of things.
He might even make that art film! ;)
zombie84 said:
In answer to the original question, ROTJ has never been less regarded than Episode II, but maybe on par with ROTS. The difference though is that ROTJ is still considered a classic, while Episode III is not. Part of that is because ROTJ is connected to Star Wars and Empire Strikes Back, while Sith is connected to Phantom Menace and Attacks of the Clones. It's not in good company. If you read the reviews and remember audience reaction they are pretty close to being even though.
This is it in a nutshell, though I believe ROTS to be the worst prequel and the only one that is a complete and utter waste.
SpilkaBilka said:
Am I the only one who thinks ROTS is actually even more horrible than AOTC?
TPM was terrible, and they just got worse and worse.
Nope you aren't , but I don't find TPM horrible and there are even one or two interesting things in AOTC.
zombie84 said:
Well, I dunno, I was 13 when the film came out and I really liked it. I feel like I was actually the perfect demographic--I was old enough to follow the political scenes, but young enough to still laugh at fart jokes. And when I put 2 and 2 together and realized Sidious is Palpatine it blew my mind because I felt like I had done the work to solve a puzzle, even though it was obvious to adult fans.
And like I said: I still like the film. I think I might be one of the only people here that will admit that. It's a film most people don't like, but maybe because I was enough of a kid but also enough of an adult that something clicked with me.
But saying it should appeal to six year olds means nothing. Six year olds don't have sophisticated tastes. But the rest of the series is mostly made to have it both ways: entertaining kids with graphics and actions, while stimulating adults with realistic characters and an interesting story. And, of course, there is cross-over, since adults are entertained by the effects and kids pick up on the better-than-average story.
I was 9, and it still is a part of my childhood so I can't exactly hate it. It isn't a bad film either, just severely misguided in places. It falls short as a Star Wars movie, but otherwise it's a relatively interesting slightly pulpy sci-fi actioner.
Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:
SpilkaBilka said:
Am I the only one who thinks ROTS is actually even more horrible than AOTC?
No! I agree with you. In my opinion, each successive prequel kept getting worse. Here is my literary synopsis:
TPM has two things going for it: (1) badass choral music over the climactic lightsaber duel, and (2) Creepy Puppet Yoda, who for some perverse reason I find mesmerizing. AOTC and ROTS, lacking those tidbits, are just unwatchable. Plus, they have Hayden Christensen, who actually manages to do what everyone thought impossible: make us miss Jake Lloyd.
AOTC has only one thing going for it - the existence of Christopher Lee. He's NOT actually good in the film, but just his being there, making us wonder if he's going to raise his cape and bite someone, earns AOTC 2nd place among the PT.
ROTS is a mind-numbing video game with nothing going for it at all. I've seen it three times and cannot remember a single scene or character from the film, apart from 10 seconds where someone on a speeder goes to Ben's hut with a baby.
TPM is a decent movie with some good points. AOTC is an okay movie with one or two good points, though it criminally wastes the Prince of Darkness and a wonderful sequence possibility between Dooku and Obi-Wan. ROTS has...nothing. It's is dull, empty, repetitive and completely unsurprising in any regard.
I saw AOTC in Omnimax which is disorienting just walking inside the big sideways dome. I got physically sick seeing AOTC on that curved dome screen, and even that was better than ROTS.
Tyrphanax said:
georgec said:
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Wars_Episode_VI:_Return_of_the_Jedi
The film is set in 4 ABY, one year after the Empire's occupation of Cloud City, when Luke Skywalker and friends travel to Tatooine to rescue their friend Han Solo from the vile Jabba the Hutt.
I win. That's for a guy that ate SW trivia up in the 90s but hasn't thought much of it since. I believe the EU states that that year was spent looking for Solo, as well, so no time to visit Yoda.
Now you're getting into Shadows of the Empire territory.
Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:
To me, the biggest problem with ROTJ is the gargantuan plot holes. In particular, the rescue plan is incomprehensible, and the emperor's plan to turn Luke makes little sense (particularly since he is telling Luke his plan).
However, it is still a really fun movie and the two new characters (Jabba and the Emperor) steal every scene they are in. The climactic scene with Vader (sans "no") is terrifically done. The ewoks are fine - there could certainly be creatures like that on some alien world. I still think it's an excellent movie despite the flaws... given the direction ESB took the "saga", ROTJ was an almost perfect wrap-up IMHO.
Yes, it is the script that hurts the impact the most, as every possible audience involvement is limited to only surface reactions to traditional fantasy adventure stereotypes. The originality has dissipated a great deal along with the inspired plottings leaving us with a hurriedly rushed conclusion that is little more than a one-film wrap up that serves as a 1983 updating of a lower grade serial.
Oh, and making Han a big bitch for the entire film. Carbonite=weight gain, bitchiness, lack of interest, thought of killing off your character, and serving no real purpose anymore.
For me ROTJ is still a classic despite its flaws. Why? It's an adventure film, one that could easily fall into another earlier time with its simplistic and typical overall plot, but it never loses the audience. It works for what it is.
I will admit that I always found the climactic duel extremely underwhelming as far as the fight itself, and that the SE trilogy made its one big contribution by substituting Yub Nub for something that at least felt a bit more fitting for the ending. Not that it's necessarily the exact right choice but for me it flows better.
SilverWook said:
Corpsey finally got a action figure this year. What's next? Extra crispy Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru with battle damaged homestead playset?
Who do I have to seduce at Hasbro to get a Jaxxon figure made? ;)
Post of the thread. Sold exclusively at KFC locations nationwide: The Col.'s extra crispy recipe Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru action figures. Limited quantities only.
I always assumed this would lead to a more fantasy themed universe, with Vader becoming the evil Dark Lord ruler of the galaxy with mystical powers over all mortals...but with an army....and a cybernetic robot suit...and nothing much else to do.
You're most welcome Puggo. The PG with all of its warts, mouse droppings, and being the so-called "children's format" is precisely the way I finally again realized the human effort that went into making the film and the joy of experiencing it. It became real again in a sense, and something that no computer or program can replicate.
That Kasdan is rumored to be in the writing wings, is music to my ears. That would help get things moving in the blink of an eye. But maintaining that momentum and actually recapturing some of the human vitality of the OOT? That's something else.
If they can combine the spirit of the first film with its vastly unexplored universe so open to any imagination, with the Kasdan infused more realized and detailed central plotting-then you've pulled the ears off the gundark.
Bingowings said:
You can tell that this :
is from the same director as this :
THIS!
They have to be from old trailers. You can get tons of material from unused trailers that nobody wants. Don't make me think anything different, it would be too painful like those godawful 70mm frames included in books and boxsets, where they have physically cut up and butchered a 70mm print just to add a bit of pointless swag.
1. IIRC there was game where if you didn't blow up the AT-AT it would indeed get back up.
2. It was an enemy force only stunned and it needed to be stopped.
3. It was a great semi-victorious moment in the face of overwhelming odds and loss.
4. IT'S A FREAKING WAR!
Poor Kenny would be looking for other jobs in robotic portrayals and the films would be sadly devoid of raspberries. ;)
That's what happens to me basically every game. You hardly ever encounter a machine set to easy mode and in the higher difficulty settings, you're most likely going to to have your one death somewhere on the Battle of Endor before the Shuttle boss. This is due to bad screens, broken or fixed joysticks etc. I have only beaten the game physically on one credit when these outside factors were absolutely minimal, because you are limited to your timing, aiming, accuracy and speed. and having a seat model helps, but not the projector 50" screens or larger because you actually cannot get to the sides of the screen to aim.
The best model is the Namco arcade which is just a normal standup cabinet with an attached Sega era custom seat. This was my favorite and best machine and I played this in a nearby arcade until it closed.
My goal on every machine I come across no matter condition or parts that are fixed to have you pumping in more quarters is to have the one death as near to the end of the DSII battle as possible and beat both Fett and Vader, achieving as many of the 15 secrets as possible. Usually I get one DSII death, one lightsaber opponent beaten and anywhere between 12-14 secrets achieved.
Simple answer: By not STICKING TO THE SAME CONSTANT STORYLINE AND INTRODUCING SOME VARIABILITY IN THE UNIVERSE AS WAS PRESENT IN THE ORIGINAL CONCEPT. BY NOT SHOEHORNING IN EVERY NECESSARY PLOT POINT TO NEATLY WRAP UP THE STORYLINES IN ONE NEAT LITTLE PACKAGE COMPLETE WITH PINK BOW. BY NOT STICKING TO THE INCREASINGLY RESTRICTIVE "SAGA" NOTION.
End rant....I feel a bit better now....Not so....maybe I lie. ;)
When LFL started pushing me in that direction to be honest.
Ironically I first saw the SE theatrically and not the OOT. I rented and bought VHS tapes for years afterwards, and as a kid found myself continually confused as to why the two versions existed and began to compare intensively and realizing that all the new "improvements" and edits weren't necessarily for the better.
In the age of VHS/LD as DVD began to slowly take hold, you had the two editions and nothing else. A DVD release was still far off in the horizon. Then came the ultimate-new films.
I didn't hate TPM. I still don't hate it. It's a well made film on its own that is just slightly dumb in places in its narrative. The technical aspects are great, especially the sound mix and even some of the cinematography is pretty good. But it isn't a great Star Wars movie, and that has been its central problem.
I suppose my real disenchantment began with the opening of AOTC, which I dutifully saw at midnight, and found myself disenchanted with the whole idea of Star Wars. So I saw the film a good 4 or 5 times theatrically afterwards I believe in some vain effort to rediscover a sense of Star Wars in there somewhere. By the time of the Omnimax curved dome screening making me physically sick in addition to the malaise of disenchantment, I knew it was time to put it aside for a while.
But the big one was September 21st 2004, the day of the OT DVD release. I bought this thing, standing in line, reserved-the works only to come home that night and sit through these with my dog only to become horrified at what had been done to not the OOT but the SE itself. The color was all wrong, the sound was wrong, the new edits and sequences were horridly sticking out, and by the time of the Anakin head replacement I was done. Just done.
ROTS sealed the deal for me, as that is probably the 2nd most deflating experience I have ever had in a theater (the no.1 is Casino Royale) because you not only knew EVERY SINGLE THING THAT WOULD HAPPEN. but that these were done in a way that ANYONE COULD HAVE DONE.
From 2005-2008 I gave up Star Wars entirely. For someone who as a child had been an incessant fan, (My childhood was comprised entirely of Film, Literature, James Bond, Star Wars and Batman) this was really hard to do but I just found I didn't care anymore.
In 2008 I started lurking here and finally took the plunge by renting the GOUT disc. And that's where both the admiration and frustration came back. Love for the universe returned, memories of childhood, but all thanks to a shoddily tossed off port of a 1993 LD master with horrid motion smearing, and tinny audio. But it was knowing that I wasn't the only one out there, and that the possibilities of the films still existed that got me excited again, and to be honest that excitement hasn't waned despite the further revisions and now with the big changeover.
But if I had to pinpoint the exact moment where I became a purist, it's not the discovery of so many losing all their hard 1977 work to a CG effect, it's not blinking Ewoks, bad EU, blowing more $ on merchandise or any other of such good reasons....it was rediscovering the spirit of the original film itself, one of discovering one's desired adventure along with a sense of purpose. The moment in the end credits where the score fades to the strings just before the final musical climax brought tears of long repressed joy to my eyes. I couldn't help it. Still can't.
When and Why: The mono mix and Puggo Grande.
I wish. I certainly, definitely, most assuredly wish that Tarkin had survived the explosion. With the loss of Cushing's characterization and relentless drive brought to every character he ever played, the series lost that commanding overbearing sense of true human villainy, that despite all of Vader's badass terrorizing in ESB and the Emperor's evil plotting, was never again equaled in the sequels.
He blew up a planet just to make a point! He is vehemently evil and yet has a certain inherent humanity that is pure Cushing, so that as with his characterization of Baron Frankenstein, you cannot ever truly HATE this character-no matter how evil or deplorable his acts.
But his death was necessitated in the original film as the culmination of the action climax, in the interests of grand drama and narrative. It is a truly perfect climax in layering, staging and editing, and that despite all of his evil acts in the end it is Tarkin's egotistical side that proves his undoing.
Or maybe I just adore Peter too much. ;)
