generalfrevious

Ok the Darth Vader cover of the complete saga Blu-ray is a marginal improvement over the original Jake Lloyd religious painting.

NeverarGreat said:

EyeShotFirst said:

If I liked the artist before I found out who they really are, I can still like their art. If I found out the artist was a piece of shit before I discovered there art, I can never look at their art in a good light.

If I had seen this painting not didn't know who the artist was, I would say it's very nice and well done... But knowing it's Hitler, I can't appreciate it.

Using anything Holocaust related as an example is a little far reaching, but rape is torture.

 That is actually quite well rendered. I never thought to look at Hitler's art before.

This was also by Hitler, and I actually really like it. Does that make me genocidal? The world is filled with people who do terrible things, and some of these same people also do good things. Hitler's art doesn't redeem his atrocious acts, certainly, but I can certainly appreciate his few good ones.

How could I forget about Manhattan, where Allen sleeps with an underage Muriel Hemingway (and based on his real-life 17 year-old girlfriend at the time!) How did anyone in 1979 not see this? Pretty good film though.

At least that Manos cover is better than any DVD/Blu cover that any Star Wars film will ever have. This steelbook release is the most pointless release of SW on physical media in a decade. They should of put the originals in to justify this release, but I guess Disney is going to drag us over the coals again just like Lucasfilm before.

If they are going to rerelease the movies again, at least give us the originals. Even the GOUT could do that.

Who wants to guess that the artwork sucks? "Star Wars" and "terrible" are the peanut butter and chocolate of our time.

Criterion had some bad transfers before: 

Children Of Paradise and Earrings of Madame De... (DNR from French masters)

Dressed To Kill (image is squeezed or stretched)

I got so upset on that last Blu-ray transfer on the Blu-ray.com forum that they thought I was trolling instead of venting and I got suspended for a week.

It's just that I want to like Woody Allen's films, but the man is such a sickening person in real life that if you admit to liking his work you are a sick person yourself. Nearly everything the he has made after 1992 is pretty terrible and vindictive and out of touch. Soon-Yi is not really his adopted daughter, and I don't want Dylan Farrow's open letter to be true either. But he still married his daughter in every sense; and Farrow is telling the truth about being a survivor of child sexual abuse. It's easy for Allen to use his money and fame to keep himself out of jail and spending the rest of his life a registered sex offender. 

But Woody Allen allegedly raped his seven-year old daughter:

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse-10-facts

So my accusation that he is a rapist is not torturous or far-fetched. Same with Bill Cosby BTW.

DuracellEnergizer said:

Generalfrevious is so adorable when he's being completely illogical/irrational.

 Here's one: Woody Allen just did a NPR interview about his paternal "relationship" with his wife-daughter Soon-Yi Previn. Fuck that guy; he is such an obvious sexual predator that he frequently drops child-molestation jokes even into his earlier, better movies. In Hannah and Her Sisters the obvious Allen stand-in divorces one woman and marries her sister. Crimes and Misdemeanors is about a man who gets away with murder; there's even a scene where his real-life molestation victim Dylan Farrow passes by the camera. Blue Jasmine is just a thinly veiled hate letter to Mia Farrow, just because she was trying to protect her daughter from his sexual predation. I bet when he dies his wife and his current adopted daughters will come out with their own horrible molestation stories. He knows he is a child rapist and constantly rubs it in our faces. Only sex offenders can openly admit to liking his movies anymore.

Does anyone have the feeling that 2016 is going to be a very miserable year? I mean, between the presidential election and the onslaught of the DC cinematic universe, it going to be one you want to forget.

At least John Lennon didn't rape 48 people and hack the New York Magazine website when they published an article about his victims.

I don't know if anyone has talked about Bill Cosby, but I can't believe he fooled millions of people for decades as a beloved father figure. All along he was a cold-blooded psychopathic rapist who openly admitted to drugging women with quaaludes for sex. It's horrifying that there are so many victims coming out of the woodwork, going back fifty years. I used to like watching reruns of The Cosby Show and the old Jello commercials, but who wants to go back to them now? 

Is there a Game Of Thrones thread on these forums?

Frankly I'm stunned that Christopher Lee has passed away. He seemed like one of those actors that would be around forever :(

darklordoftech said:

I pictured young Shaw. I didn't think about who would be casted.

 I also go for Sebastian Shaw.

darth_ender said:

generalfrevious said:

 I just want to enjoy the LOTR movies again, that's all.

 It sounds to me like you have never enjoyed them, and thus cannot enjoy them again.

 Actually you're wrong. I really loved them a lot, especially the extended versions. Which is why I'm so disappointed to learn that Jackson cares less about   Tolkien's work than I do. 

TV's Frink said:

generalfrevious said:

TV's Frink said:

generalfrevious said:

TV's Frink said:

generalfrevious said:

But I'm concerned that Jackson's version of Middle-Earth is eclipsing the real version in the eyes of most people.

First world problems.

 Jackson and Tolkien are like oil and water. Tolkien was an Oxford professor who spent decades building Middle-Earth, and he put detail into names, languages, places, and history. He has subsequently influenced every single high fantasy novel in the last 60 years. Jackson was just some gore-obsessed exploitation filmmaker who couldn't restrain himself. He based his version of LOTR on fuzzy memories of the Ralph Bakshi cartoon when he was a kid, and hustled his way into filming the live-action versions to satisfy his own ego. And now he can't make a coherent or subdued film if his life depended on it. Did Jackson spend years getting every detail right, perfecting the internal chronology, fine-tuning the characters, keep focus on what the book were really about? Of course not! He was just a greedy bastard who bashes the system for the very thing he is guilty of. The Hobbit/Lord Of the Rings means nothing to him except as an intellectual property he can milk to build his second mansion. He's pissed that he can't milk that cow anymore now that Christopher Tolkien (who helped write LOTR and the Silmarillion) stepped in and kept his father's work in safe hands from the next Peter Jackson wannabe.

 When I respond that you should shut up, I don't know why you think I'm asking you to post more.

 Was Frodo in the movies the same character as in the books? Aragorn? Gimli? Faramir? Denethor? Elrond? Merry & Pippin? The characters we saw in the movies were the polar opposites of the characters portrayed in the books. Frodo Baggins was supposed to be a hero, not some dumbass that got stabbed every five minutes.

Maybe if Peter Jackson respected the characters in the first place I would have nothing to complain about.

 Purple monkey dishwasher.

 I just want to enjoy the LOTR movies again, that's all.

TV's Frink said:

generalfrevious said:

TV's Frink said:

generalfrevious said:

But I'm concerned that Jackson's version of Middle-Earth is eclipsing the real version in the eyes of most people.

First world problems.

 Jackson and Tolkien are like oil and water. Tolkien was an Oxford professor who spent decades building Middle-Earth, and he put detail into names, languages, places, and history. He has subsequently influenced every single high fantasy novel in the last 60 years. Jackson was just some gore-obsessed exploitation filmmaker who couldn't restrain himself. He based his version of LOTR on fuzzy memories of the Ralph Bakshi cartoon when he was a kid, and hustled his way into filming the live-action versions to satisfy his own ego. And now he can't make a coherent or subdued film if his life depended on it. Did Jackson spend years getting every detail right, perfecting the internal chronology, fine-tuning the characters, keep focus on what the book were really about? Of course not! He was just a greedy bastard who bashes the system for the very thing he is guilty of. The Hobbit/Lord Of the Rings means nothing to him except as an intellectual property he can milk to build his second mansion. He's pissed that he can't milk that cow anymore now that Christopher Tolkien (who helped write LOTR and the Silmarillion) stepped in and kept his father's work in safe hands from the next Peter Jackson wannabe.

 When I respond that you should shut up, I don't know why you think I'm asking you to post more.

 Was Frodo in the movies the same character as in the books? Aragorn? Gimli? Faramir? Denethor? Elrond? Merry & Pippin? The characters we saw in the movies were the polar opposites of the characters portrayed in the books. Frodo Baggins was supposed to be a hero, not some dumbass that got stabbed every five minutes.

Maybe if Peter Jackson respected the characters in the first place I would have nothing to complain about.

TV's Frink said:

generalfrevious said:

But I'm concerned that Jackson's version of Middle-Earth is eclipsing the real version in the eyes of most people.

First world problems.

 Jackson and Tolkien are like oil and water. Tolkien was an Oxford professor who spent decades building Middle-Earth, and he put detail into names, languages, places, and history. He has subsequently influenced every single high fantasy novel in the last 60 years. Jackson was just some gore-obsessed exploitation filmmaker who couldn't restrain himself. He based his version of LOTR on fuzzy memories of the Ralph Bakshi cartoon when he was a kid, and hustled his way into filming the live-action versions to satisfy his own ego. And now he can't make a coherent or subdued film if his life depended on it. Did Jackson spend years getting every detail right, perfecting the internal chronology, fine-tuning the characters, keep focus on what the book were really about? Of course not! He was just a greedy bastard who bashes the system for the very thing he is guilty of. The Hobbit/Lord Of the Rings means nothing to him except as an intellectual property he can milk to build his second mansion. He's pissed that he can't milk that cow anymore now that Christopher Tolkien (who helped write LOTR and the Silmarillion) stepped in and kept his father's work in safe hands from the next Peter Jackson wannabe.

DominicCobb said:

It'd be hilarious if frevious saw TFA and loved it, but convinced himself he hated it just so he could keep his signature.

 No if TFA was good I would just change my signature. 

Ok I was very harsh.

But I'm concerned that Jackson's version of Middle-Earth is eclipsing the real version in the eyes of most people. What we now know is that Jackson does not respect Tolkien's books at all, except as a cash machine to exploit. Even in the LOTR films every theme from the source material is cut out for longer battle sequences. The characters in the movies have nothing in common with the books except their names. I have a hard time believing that anyone who is a fan of Tolkien's writings honestly likes the Hobbit trilogy. Frodo and Bilbo Baggins were the central characters of those two books, and they were barely in the films at all! Imagine if Peter Jackson made a film version of Moby-Dick and left the white whale on the cutting room floor; that's the level of respect he has for these works.

And yes I have plenty of positive thoughts in my life, they're just not on these message boards, much like Bilbo in the third Hobbit movie.

At least I read the book, unlike Jackson, who just skimmed the table of contents at his local bookstore and made six movies out of it. I mea he gives more screen time to Aragorn than to Frodo; he spends more time on Helm's Deep and cuts out the Scouring Of the Shire; he reduces Bilbo into little more than a Watson cameo over three movies. This doesn't mean the movies were bad or unimportant, but they can never be truly Tolkein films. I think PJ just slapped on Lord Of the Rings for brand recognition and made up his own fantasy story. The only thing he could have done worse is dig up JRR Tolkein's remains for his necrophilia fetish.

I think Peter Jackson is a monster rapist for what he did to LOTR/The Hobbit (but mostly the latter). The more you read the books, the more you realize that they are some of the least faithful adaptations ever done since Roland Joffe's The Scarlet Letter. Jackson deserves at least a minor stroke for what he did. And don't think the rest of Tolkein's works are safe; that crass bastard will do anything in his power to get his hands on the Silmarillion.

TV's Frink said:

Leonardo said:

yes. stop watching shitty "scary" movies.

 I liked The Ring, so there.

 Japanese or American version?

Therefore the real versions of the OT, the ones that were nade from 77-83, and were the official versions of the film until 1997, the products responsible for making George Lucas into a billionaire studio mogul, are condemned forever to obscurity, while the SE lives on. This shouldn't have happened.

(At least they are not lost like I feared)

Then there are the studios trying to kill physical media (like 20th century Fox). When the five disc Blade Runner set came out streaming movies over the Internet wasn't like it was today. So releasing a box set with the theatrical cuts isn't as viable as it was even four years ago when Star Wars Box set came out.