logo Sign In

imperialscum

User Group
Members
Join date
7-Mar-2013
Last activity
16-Jan-2022
Posts
3,205

Post History

Post
#1380473
Topic
What's so great about ESB?
Time

canofhumdingers said:

Predatory? Sorry but that’s a bit of an extreme description of Han and Leia’s relationship. Han is a typical overly confident buffoon but Leia is a strong and confident woman who is never forced or coerced into anything. She’s clearly in control of any situation she’s placed in with any of her “suitors” throught the OT.

In control of any situation? I do not think so. Han mined the snow tunnel leading to her ship and then made it look like it collapsed so he could take her to his ship.

Also, it may not be apparent, but he just wanted her money. We know that very well from ANH.

Post
#1379932
Topic
Opinion: Return Of The Jedi is Very Underrated. Do You Agree?
Time

TheBirdwatcher said:
The manner in which ROTJ Luke inverts the situation makes ROTJ Luke to be the supposedly more threatening one here, but it also insults TESB Vader at the same time, tbh.

Like many fans, you do not understand (or do not like) the concept called character development. If Vader stayed the same as in ANH and ESB, there would be no character development and it would be boring. Vader at the end of ESB was profoundly affected by the encounter with Luke (something he did not expect in the slightest) and ROTJ perfectly develops upon that. Luke’s character developed from ESB as well and ROTJ did a great job at it.

Same goes for fans wanting the “old Han” nonsense. If he stayed the same as in ANH and for the large portion of ESB, there would be basically no character development, which would be boring.

In the end, ROTJ does pretty much the most character development of the three films.

Post
#1378891
Topic
Opinion: Return Of The Jedi is Very Underrated. Do You Agree?
Time

ShiftyEyes said:

Artistically, ROTJ also looks rather flat and ugly compared to Empire.

That is entirely subjective. To me it looks great. For example, throne room scenes are visually excellent.

NeverarGreat said:

A lot of the flat look has to do with the fact that Marquand came from a primarily television background, in which flat lighting was the norm.

Lighting is pretty much the cinematographer’s job. Of course, the director has some high-level input but I doubt Marquand was telling Alan Hume “I want scenes to look flat” (btw, what does “flat” even mean?). Every film in the trilogy had a different cinematographer, hence the different styles are quite apparent. Which one if better, is in the end entirely subjective.

To me ESB and ROTJ cinematography styles feel much closer to each other than ANH.

Post
#1378277
Topic
Popularity of the Original Trilogy enhanced by Prequels?
Time

Star Wars as a franchise seems to be getting less and less popular among many casual fans with each new trilogy. PT was average and ST was a complete shit. However, bad advertisement is better than no advertisement, so perhaps at least the new stuff reminds the new audience that the franchise exists, which inevitably leads them to OT.

Even without the new films, there have been plenty of Star Wars video games coming out in the past three decades that kept the whole thing alive. Nowadays, video game audience is almost as big as film audience.

Post
#1360193
Topic
Is it Lucas, or Fox, who has prevented the restored OOT release?
Time

V.I.N.Cent said:

The casual Star Wars fan would likely buy such as a set, and even film fans in general.

That may be true, but most of them would not know what they are buying anyway. So in the end, that does not amount to a demand, because if they throw out another SE with a minimal effort, they will get just as much money as if they put a lot of effort into a proper restoration of OOT.

Post
#1354579
Topic
Is it Lucas, or Fox, who has prevented the restored OOT release?
Time

JadedSkywalker said:

I disagree with respect. I see the Special Edition as a fundamentally different film trilogy. Its like a remake.

Well you might disagree and see it as a “fundamentally different film” all you want, but that does not change the fact that legally it is not. Fox would still get the profit for no effort and therefore had nothing to do with the original version not being released. If Lucas wanted to put the effort to restore the original version, Fox would be happy to take the free profit from it.

Post
#1349493
Topic
<strong>Empire Strikes Back</strong> - 'Behind The Scenes / Making Of' <strong>images</strong> thread
Time

ZkinandBonez said:

It took me a second to recognize Kasdan in the last two photos as he’s rarely present in BTS photos (which isn’t to strange considering people rarely bother to take photos of people writing movies).

I guess it is also a rare photo of Lucas with a genuine smile in recorded history. 😄

Post
#1346757
Topic
<strong>The Empire Strikes Back</strong> - a general <strong>Random Thoughts</strong> thread
Time

SilverWook said:

Yes, but Sabacc night was never the same for Piett after Vader choked Ozzel and Needa.

😄

Chase Adams said:

I meant by the end of the film, Piett loses big time when the falcon gets away.

Sure, but if you sum everything up, a multiple-rank promotion and miraculously keeping his life outweigh that, and the bottom line is big win situation for him. 😉

Post
#1345628
Topic
Is it Lucas, or Fox, who has prevented the restored OOT release?
Time

Just because Lucas added some changes in special editions, it does not mean the whole thing became a different film, and it certainly does not mean that Fox suddenly did not own the rights any more. So if Fox opposed re-release of the film, then there would be no special editions either. It is a simple logic.

For Fox, it was a win-win situation whatever Lucas wanted to re-release, because it was Lucasfilm who had to spend money and produce the re-releases, while Fox basically just profited with almost no effort. If Lucas was willing to spend money and restore the original version, Fox would without doubt happily welcome the “free” profit.

Post
#1342712
Topic
I'll never understand the attitude of people who oppose the release of the unaltered original trilogy.
Time

Shopping Maul said:

imperialscum said:

Shopping Maul said:

I was thinking “no, you don’t get to celebrate 40 years of a movie you’ve deliberately tried to bury. You can celebrate 40 years in 2037”.

What do you mean 2037? He buried the 1997 version even more than the original.

So if it is not the original version, then it is all the same shit right? This kind of attitude is the symptom of the same problem I was describing in my earlier post.

I meant no offence, I was just making a generalisation based on when the SEs overtook the originals as a concept. I mean the originals were tinkered with too - different mixes, different opening crawls etc - but I was merely referring to 1997 as the particular line in the sand where the original theatrical films were written off and the new Star Wars (with its conga-line of versions/changes/additions to follow) became a thing.

No worries. I cannot be offended.

I was just pointing out that such generalisation is not really fair to the reality of things. Like I said, the 1997 version was more neglected than the original version when it comes to re-release.

Post
#1342607
Topic
I'll never understand the attitude of people who oppose the release of the unaltered original trilogy.
Time

Shopping Maul said:

I was thinking “no, you don’t get to celebrate 40 years of a movie you’ve deliberately tried to bury. You can celebrate 40 years in 2037”.

What do you mean 2037? He buried the 1997 version even more than the original.

So if it is not the original version, then it is all the same shit right? This kind of attitude is the symptom of the same problem I was describing in my earlier post.

Post
#1340658
Topic
I'll never understand the attitude of people who oppose the release of the unaltered original trilogy.
Time

yotsuya said:

I’d partner with Criterion for the release because they would love a project like this and wouldn’t be put off by the low profit margin that Disney cares about (and face it, we know they do).

I would vote for Criterion too. They do things very well.

As for Disney, they certainly do not care for quality and they do not seem to care for profit either, since they prioritised political agendas of their incompetent producers and directors over the story, characters and eventually even profit of ST.