DrCrowTStarwars said:
Read more Shakespeare, and Roman history while you are at it.
You know now that I think about it I don't think it is today, I am pretty sure it is tomorrow that Julius has to worry about.
But the soothesayer warned the good Emperor the day before, didn't he? It's been a while and I may have forgotten.
I'm sure you're tired of hearing from me, but here's another thought:
I can't find where you see that the original Tusken Raider shout just after knocking Luke down was not originally present. All I can find is that originally the actor simply held up the club for a moment and pressed his attack. Later, when re-cut (in other words, after the Lost Edit was abandoned), the editors ran his motions back and forth to create the familiar shaking of the club in the air. What if you simply removed the back and forth, showing only the brief wave of the club with some shorter Tusken yell? It seems like it wouldn't look as odd as what you did put, and would possibly be closer to the original cut.
I haven't watched your whole edit since I posted that long review on it. I've only seen pieces here and there. So I have been looking at all the little clips I could find of potentially missed bits, but as I've checked everything I can find, I can't help but admire how well you've integrated practically everything I can find so amazingly well. You did a fantastic job squeezing so many pieces in there, and so flawlessly. Once the audio is complete and the material made to look older, the integration will be seamless. I'm amazed once again at how well you've done here!
Tell Julius to watch out for Brutus while you're at it.
Had a couple more thoughts on the scene in question:
In the opening menu portion of the DVD bonus material there is a good shot of the Falcon's cockpit when empty. If your interest and dedication are up to it, you probably could probably edit Chewie into the shot without Han, then do the same for the external material through the window. Probably a bit of a challenge, so I'm not sure if it's feasible. Another idea: I was at Walmart a couple of days ago and saw a rather easy-to-assemble model of the Falcon that looked surprisingly accurate. Biggest error that I could see was color, and since the movie is black and white and the clip so short that you want, I thought it probably wouldn't be noticeable if you wanted to go that route.
I also have taken the liberty of putting together a few clips into your last draft. Most of them are lower quality (though some are SD at least). They are brief but do well to enhance what you are going for, I feel. I know you want decent quality, but you have also included low rez stuff that does nothing for the story. I feel it should be worth considering. Of course it's your edit and I don't want to sound pushy. I just want to make suggestions that may be helpful. When I'm done splicing in ideas, I can send you a copy with notes on where to skip to the relevant stuff. If you like even one idea, it would be worth the effort.
Thanks for all you've done on this edit. It's rough, but it's literally my favorite version of ANH to watch. :)
^ALLOL
is there a PCP mental exhilarant to score seedy toupee temple.com?
Personally I see no problem with cutting the shot altogether. However, since I know you want a couple of seconds to fill the gap, I have a couple of thoughts to create effects:
1) If there is an internal shot of just Chewy in his seat looking out the window, perhaps you might be able to replace the external matting with something of your own, making it look like the Falcon is taking off from an internal POV. With the skills you have at your disposal, this seems like something you could easily achieve.
2) Jaitea makes Millennium Falcon models for fun. Perhaps he could film a short green screen shot that you could again add matting to.
As for your opening, I still can't help but prefer the previous for the reasons I've cited before, but this is extremely cool, and I love the work you've done and would be plenty happy if this is what stays in the final release.
thejediknighthusezni said:
Post Praetorian said:
thejediknighthusezni said:
As with all controversial opinions and viewpoints, the holders thereof can be divided into 'Generally Passive' and 'Generally Militant'.
A passive sort doesn't especially care and takes no great pains to diminish those who hold a contrary view.
Someone who is militant in their beliefs will be inclined to belittle, in thought and/or deed, those with opposing positions.
Personally, I only fault passive atheists for their lack of curiosity towards the information that challenges their position.
I am profoundly distrustful of the militant variety. FAR too often there is more to their militancy than simple disagreement over the available facts. TOO often it involves the perpetuation and propogation of CRUEL depravities in personal conduct and socio-political constructs.
Might you consider yourself to be more of a Generally Passive Theist or a Generally Militant Theist?
Further, is it not somewhat presumptuous to assume that a Passive Atheist is lacking in curiosity? Is it not equally plausible that such a one might simply understand the limitations of both positions and merely wish to refrain from unnecessary conflict?
Whether I am a theist at all would depend upon how broadly one wishes to define "Theism".
In my broad consideration, Anyone with the power to generate, sustain, and effect great changes in an entire universe qualifies as "God" over that creation. For this reason, I am not uncomfortable with being called a "Theist".
I would consider myself a "Passive Theist" in the sense that I feel no special calling to "Win people for Jesus".
I do tend to become militant towards the militancy of others.
As for Passive Atheists, I am confident that any genuine atheist who would take a little time to HONESTLY examine the evidence and Logic would soon move to a position of tentative agnosticism, at the least.
I see you as pretty militant yourself, often calling Jesuits (presumably representative of all of Catholicism) and the CIA (as an appendage of the Executive Branch given a free hand in all they do), and pretty much any non-believer, no matter how respectful, into your crosshairs as if they were all connected in a massive conspiracy. I am grateful to have more people on my side (at least as a theist, though I don't know how you feel about Mormons), but I don't like your methods or conclusions. However, I completely agree with your last paragraph here. An atheistic approach is based on skepticism, and if a true skeptic, then he should not be so confident that God has been disproven.
Well now that I reread that, I guess you're right. LOL
generalfrevious said:
I never said I wanted to murder my family. I said sometimes I wish they were dead; that is not the same as wanting to kill them. I was just angry when I wrote that; I would not be an asshole enough to say say that in front of my parents' face or follow through on that threat. My family sometimes say stupid things that piss me off, but we're not dysfunctional or anything. Wishing they were dead, in hindsight, was a terrible thing to say, even though my feelings act otherwise.
As I started this thread, I usually try to contribute to everyone's distress to at least some extent. However, I must admit that you are so negative that I am at a loss for what to say. You really have such a pessimistic outlook on life and anything you disagree with that they only advice I can offer, and I say this without any insult intended, is that you need professional help. You may need counseling to address such a negative outlook on life and to learn better coping skills with your situations. We all face challenges, many far worse than yours. But people learn how to cope with and overcome them. You seem to prefer to wallow in misery and share that misery with others when you could take the bull by the horns and solve your issues on your own. If you need help, there is no shame in getting it professionally. I don't mean to be rude, but sometimes people need a slap in the face to change their thought processes.
^Must be the British way of conjugating verbs. ;)
^^Fair points, though unfortunate in that it will usually lead to insulting conversation if not handled well. Still, I believe such conversation can be had without belittling believers.
Post Praetorian said:
darth_ender said:
I don't mean this to be rude, but I find it a common tenet of many atheists that their rants are more about how others, most particularly Christians (at least in Christian majority countries), are wrong. I mean, my thread is dedicated to putting me on the defensive. I have deliberately taken a defensive role, inviting others to critique Mormonism. But it seems far too many atheists (and I will agree, too many religious people) feel it necessary to elevate their stance by criticizing those who disagree rather than letting their own merits speak for themselves. All three links you provide seem to fall exactly into that category. I can easily blame the blogger and not you. Don't fall into that trap yourself. Obviously you believe you are correct. Let atheism speak for itself.
I hope this came across properly.
This might be best understood within the context that the majority of current atheists likely either have religious relatives (who may possibly believe the atheist to be destined for damnation) or were once themselves religious. From such a perspective might it not make marked sense that the typical atheist apologetic should be less about a stand on atheism's merits (which may not actually exist in any great measure) as opposed to a seeming rant against the majority of 'mislead' believers?
For if one were to ascend the mount of atheism so as to look down upon all of the 'foolish' toiling believers who yet strive towards the impossible and improbable whilst denying themselves of the certain, is it truly a wonder that the logical assumption of the atheist might be, upon reaching such an apex, that such an arrival is a demonstration of mental prowess?
Yet should the atheist merely sit atop his mountain and make claim that his position is far superior (rather than stressing the inferiority of the position of his opponents) with what might he be expected to support such an argument? In making his apogee has he not stripped himself of supposed pretense; filled his heart with pride; and abandoned many former comrades along the way? What do such accomplishments attain that one might use to support a claim of a superior position?
Does he not share a similarity to the adolescent who has sacrificed the imagination of youth in favor of more tangible reality: instead of filling his days with wonder, hope and possibility, he must now reside within a more sober state in which his limitations must be keenly felt, his accomplishments belittled, and his expectation of a happy-ever-after truncated?
For what does the atheist possess that is so worthy of defense? So worthy of self-congratulations? Is not his position a solitary one? His discoveries self-effacing? The depths of his purposes made hollow?
For in seeking to plumb the extent of his existence has he not merely discovered that he is not, in fact, digging an all-important passageway through to the center of the Earth, but is, instead, merely playing with a plastic shovel in a sandbox? With such a reality firmly realized, what might the atheist stand proudly to defend?
It does often seem this is the only cause worth fighting for. I see it at almost every turn. Nearly every atheist with whom I get into a conversation of any depth inevitably turns to criticism of religion as his or her base, rather than other points. I believe if I were atheist, I would simply tout why I believe what I believe, pointing out the truths of evolution, psychology, geology, astronomy, and such things that one might use to strengthen the atheist position. Now I probably would do this because of years from the other side, seeing a unique perspective and dwelling on this topic more than most. I actually am an author (of incomplete and unpublished works, mind you). The topics on which I dwell nearly always gravitate towards the differences between the minds of faith and doubt, and as a result, I have internally explored these topics to great depth in recent years. As such, I believe I have arrived at conclusions sympathetic to both sides, and a desire to seek common ground rather than animosity. One can proclaim his or her beliefs without putting down others. That is what I believe a good atheist should do as well.
I have to be honest, that is a really cool shot, and it's especially cool that it is primarily derived from original artwork! Well done!
If I were to make a recommendation, I would still do the fades as I suggested before. I would probably have the opening scroll ultimately fade to this shot, then fade to a the original opening matte, then from there have it pan down and continue fading as you originally had. Again, just my thoughts.
I don't mean this to be rude, but I find it a common tenet of many atheists that their rants are more about how others, most particularly Christians (at least in Christian majority countries), are wrong. I mean, my thread is dedicated to putting me on the defensive. I have deliberately taken a defensive role, inviting others to critique Mormonism. But it seems far too many atheists (and I will agree, too many religious people) feel it necessary to elevate their stance by criticizing those who disagree rather than letting their own merits speak for themselves. All three links you provide seem to fall exactly into that category. I can easily blame the blogger and not you. Don't fall into that trap yourself. Obviously you believe you are correct. Let atheism speak for itself.
I hope this came across properly.
Yes, that's the one, though I wish you had included a bit more in the beginning. The pan down from the scroll is part of what I love about it. It almost takes you by surprise, since we're all familiar with the original opening, and might expect the same thing.
Glad you're back to working on this, and I hope you don't mind my constant badgering ;)
Just heard. Glad he's okay.
^Agreed. Had me nervous for a few.
Very cool. Thanks for the link :)
I hope you will one day get around to some Star Trek documentaries. The Wrath of Khan has some pretty cool material, and as Trek's best film by most accounts, I bet it would be a popular documentary. Whatever your endeavors, you do great work, and I appreciate all you've done.
To be truthful, and I hope this does not offend, but I thought your last opening was (visually) perfect. As simple an aspect as it was, it was one of my favorite points of the edit, as it felt like how so many movies did back in the day, fading from one matte to the next till we found ourselves face to face with our hero. I like how it opened just like the official movie as well, panning down to Tatooine, but instead of seeing the corvette and destroyer, we pan further, then zoom in on the planet. And when Luke looked up, we saw the battle, exactly overhead as we had just previously seen the planet. I don't know what it is, but I really, really loved the way you had it previously.
I agree. That's a pretty cool idea.
DuracellEnergizer said:
darth_ender said:
Yes, I agree, he does sound like he's talking down
And here I thought you were the resident patronizer on this board. ;-)
I'm sure I can be patronizing, but only when someone is arguing with me and repeatedly misinterprets what I say. I think I'm usually a pretty nice and tolerant guy, I think.
Yes, I agree, he does sound like he's talking down, but I really would rather just make peace. That's why it took so long for me to respond, but I don't want to keep fighting.
DrCrowTStarwars said:
Treating your costumers like crooks and cheating them is bad business in the long run, why can't companies see this?
Yes, it's important to treat those who design your costumes well ;)