imperialscum

timdiggerm said:

I have encoded the film as a radio wave which will eventually be received by a deep space probe and sent back so we can watch it. In between transmission and reception by the probe, I have destroyed all copies of the film.

Radio waves, happily, are not made of matter.

Finally a worthy post!

Hmm now there is a question of how broadly you use the adjective "physical". If you use "physical" on the highest level, i.e. an adjective pertaining to physics, then the copy would still be a physical copy since electromagnetic radiation is part of physics.

MrPib said:

imperialscum said:

Downloading the copy to your hard disk or buying it on DVD is both buying physical copy. At no point it becomes a non-physical copy.

I'm pretty sure I'm feeding a troll here -- I don't think that this guy is really this obtuse.  Anyway, the term is clearly defined in the Digital Copy wiki.  A file on your hard drive is NOT a physical copy, as the term is understood:

A Digital Copy is a commercially distributed computer file containing a media product such as a film or music album. The term contrasts this computer file with the physical copy(typically a DVD or Blu-ray Disc) with which the Digital Copy is usually offered as part of a bundle

Not matter how clearly it is defined, it completely violates the term "physical" and is therefore wrong.

Just like when people are used to call native Americans "Indians" when in fact they are not Indians at all.

timdiggerm said:

What if I devise an equation which, if calculated, results in a number which, when converted to binary, would be a valid file which, when played in VLC, would show the movie? I then delete any copies of the film, but keep the equation.

Well you would still have a copy of the film. The difference would be that your equation would be sort of a parametric representation of the film as opposed to pixel-to-time mapping. Where ever you would put that equation to (paper, hard disk) it would still be a physical copy.

towne32 said:

 A higher bitrate copy that you actually own, rather than lease, and won't expire when a company folds or gets bought out or changes their business model.

If it is on your hard disk then you have it even if the company goes down. There may be some legal issues but that's not the discussion we were on about. The point was whether you obtain physical copy when you download the content or not. The answer is yes because non-physical copies of anything do not exist.

towne32 said:

You're not the brightest person.

I am not really certain whether I am the brightest person. You know, I could be the second brightest person.

He said "buying physical copy"... post below:

moviefreakedmind said:

 I for one will never purchase any film unless I get a physical copy.

Downloading the copy to your hard disk or buying it on DVD is both buying physical copy. At no point it becomes a non-physical copy.

In the first case, the physical copy stored on the company server's hard disk is being transferred (over the internet, physically non-the-less) to your PC's hard disk where it is again a physical copy that you bought.

In the second case, the physical copy stored on the company server's hard disk is being transferred to the DVD which you then buy.

I am quite certain that a non-physical copy of anything cannot exist. Maybe some magic in fairytales.

moviefreakedmind said:

imperialscum said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I for one will never purchase any film unless I get a physical copy.

I hate to be Ric again but even if you download the digital content on your hard disk, you get a physical copy. The information is stored physically on your disk.

 If I buy the movie Speed 2: Cruise Control on Itunes, I do not get a physical copy; I get a digital file of the film that I store on a hard drive that I already own. If I buy it on blu ray, then I get a physical copy of the film... not that I would ever spend money on Speed 2: Cruise Control. 

Or at least that's how it works in my brain

But that is not how it works outside of you brain. Blu-ray or hard disk, both are physical devices that hold digital data.

I am here on official business to finally officially revoke this thread's unwarranted "official" label. Please cooperate.

DominicCobb said:

I'm just saying that the ghost Anakin is not recognizably the dying Anakin.

And that's your opinion. I say the two are easily relatable.

DominicCobb said:

I am not saying that Luke (and the audience) would not realize who the ghost was supposed to be.

Well in fact you said Luke would not recognise the ghost which is the same thing as not realising it (or if we are really precise recognition is an essential step before realisation).

StarThoughts said:

You will find this phraseology fairly consistent across the internet.

Internet is fairly consistently wrong and my mission is to correct it!

moviefreakedmind said:

I for one will never purchase any film unless I get a physical copy.

I hate to be Ric again but even if you download the digital content on your hard disk, you get a physical copy. The information is stored physically on your disk.

DominicCobb said:

Obviously the only reasonable assumption (and the one everyone makes) is that the ghost is Anakin. But it's an assumption. My point is that Luke wouldn't really recognize his image and that point still stands.

You are the one making the assumption here. You assume people are too stupid to immediately realise who the ghost is. On what basis you make that assumption is beyond me (perhaps yourself?). But when I watched the film for the first time I immediately recognised who the ghost was. And personally I don't know anyone who didn't. So don't make such assumption. I am sure Luke was smart enough to recognise the ghost as well.

MathUser said:

It's prettty stupid, he saved him so he's at the point before he became evil right? That's why he gots normal color for his skin and normal body parts? But for some reason he's aged. Did Luke somehow create an alternate timeline or something?

There sure is an endless supply of PT lovers who come up with this stupid argument.

First of all, it is not that Luke saved anyone. His presence just triggered Anakin's return who then saved Luke. The old guy that died was Anakin... the Anakin Luke met and knew. It is only reasonable to appear in the age that Luke is supposed to recognise.

But then again everything is physical. Even if it is digital information it is still stored physically somewhere.

SilverWook said:

Having read the original making of ESB book, I disagree. Whatever you think of his work before and after Empire, Kershner rose to the occasion. There were many events on the production beyond anyone's control. That's the nature of the business, you can't plan for everything.

ESB was a far more complex film than Star Wars, and Jedi is no ESB.

Well I didn't say it was entirely his fault. I said partly which I think is completely correct according to the information we have.

Yes ESB was more complex than SW in terms of on-set related production but not proportional to the eventual time spent. As for ROTJ, I believe it had the same level of on-set related complexity as ESB, or even higher due to all the creatures involved.

lucasdroid said:

Man, George was really best when he choose awesome talent.  He's good at that. Copolla is wrong. George isn't a good filmmaker but he's good at recognizing talent. And Kershner was the man. I need to go find all of his films now and watch them.

You will probably be disappointed. I saw most of his major films and they range from very poor to average at the best. In Empire he was basically a hired actor-director and he was provided with great material (script, art design, concept ideas etc. all of which basically directed by Lucas) and a very good team to work with.

I wouldn't call him too talented either. You may be unaware but a huge amount of time had to be spent on principal production of ESB (6 months, twice as much as on either SW or ROTJ) partly to his inability. A competent director should be able to make the scenes work in a few takes by working things out in his head and rely a proper direction to the actors. Having available countless takes, good script and competent team... you can pick a random guy from a street and the film will be eventually made well.

It is easy to make fun of the apparent Lucas' "3 takes per scenes" approach in SW. But that is how the films have to be made under tight time and money restriction. And such conditions call for a talented director with ability to make scenes work in a few takes (btw I am not saying Lucas is good on-set director). I am sure every director would like unlimited time but that is very rarely allowed (Kubrick is one such example).

I kinda feel sorry for Kurtz. He was either to allow taking a take after take and get good scenes and allow the film to go over-schedule and over-budget; or force Kershner to work in a timely fashion and probably get bad scenes. Fortunately for the sake of film, he chose the former and unfortunately got fired for a consequent budget increase.

DominicCobb said:

"Bring my shuttle" is said not necessarily angrily. The primary emotion there is frustration. Disappointment causes frustration.

After Luke turns him down he is utterly disappointed.

So "bring my shuttle" is in fact correct for the situation according to your logic.

Besides that you're missing the fact that this SE change adds highly unnecessary footage and RUINS THE MUSIC. Enough said. Awful change.

Argument over. Stop arguing with imperialscum. Done. Stop it.

It is quite obviously said in angry manner. I am not against the line itself, just how it was said.

Don't get me wrong. I think the new line is lame for the given situation. I just feel that I rather have the new one than the old one said in such inappropriate fashion.

Alderaan said:

You say you understand the emotions going on in the scene, but you didn't reference any.

Just because you don't read my posts it doesn't mean they don't exist...

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Which-is-considered-canon-the-Special-Edition-or-GOUT/post/743033/#TopicPost743033

imperialscum said:

Before and at the beginning of the duel he is mainly enthusiastic to finally meet his son. When he disarms him and reveals the fact that he is his father he is excited and hyped up. After Luke turns him down he is utterly disappointed.

It is very natural in terms of father/son aspect. I see no reason what-so-ever for anger in this situation.

It seems it is pointless since we just have different opinion on the whole matter. The thing is I don't see even a hint of any anger in the scene. As I said, the primary emotion at that point is excitement, which can be clearly read from his voice when he reveals that he is in fact his father and when he asks him to join him.

Alderaan said:

I don't think you've explored the emotional depth in this film to its full extent.

I think did. It is just that I feel you got it wrong. And what you seemed to have "explored" is much less complex. As I stated in my previous posts, there are many emotions and emotional changes going on. It is just that anger is not one of them and does not fit in there.

Ryan McAvoy said:

imperialscum said:

And losing patience in a sense of swiftly ending the fight has nothing to do with anger. He came to the point where Luke was physically cornered and he had move to the final step of his plan.

Screaming in pain when Luke manages to chop a chunk out of his shoulder, was all part of his master plan? Because to me that's the reason he loses his cool and maims Luke 1 second later.

No, getting hit in his shoulder is irrelevant. The plan was to corner Luke and disarm him in order to persuade him to join him. He came to this point when the they moved to the very edge of that small platform. Regardless of Luke hitting his shoulder, there was no space and no reason to prolong the fight.

It is not seething... it is disappointment.

Before and at the beginning of the duel he is mainly enthusiastic to finally meet his son. When he disarms him and reveals the fact that he is his father he is excited and hyped up. After Luke turns him down he is utterly disappointed.

It is very natural in terms of father/son aspect. I see no reason what-so-ever for anger in this situation.

Alderaan said:

You can't pick up on the emotional changes in these fights?

I can... but anger is not one of them. Well at least not on Vader's side.

And losing patience in a sense of swiftly ending the fight has nothing to do with anger. He came to the point where Luke was physically cornered and he had move to the final step of his plan.

Alderaan said:

imperialscum said:

Alderaan said:

*Vader doesn't calmly say "alert my star destroyer blah blah blah" when he's seething with rage.

That is one of the best changes in SE. The original scene with dumb anger mood completely contradicted the character of Vader as presented throughout the film. He was an intelligent villain, not some angry moron. Nothing seems to be able to upset him and that is what makes him even more cool.

He was being failed most clumsily by his officers and yet he showed no anger when he was executing them. On contrary, he did it with sarcasm, wit and style... making clam remarks like "Apology accepted, Captain Needa" while choking the guy to the death.

And the original scene also contradicted the scenes that follows. On the Star Destroyer, Vader is very clam and his primary emotion seem to be disappointment. There is no sign of any anger. He doesn't even choke Piett and instead he simply just leaves the bridge in silence.

Just ... no. Mother damn it no. Holy **** NO!

You must have missed the part where Vader lost his patience and went from toying with Luke to wailing away at him like a madman. Then raised his voice and inflected it with anger. Etc.

There is NO such thing to fit your description. He just makes a short yell sound (of pain) when Luke hits his shoulder. It is just the fact that human central nervous system reacts to body damage. That has nothing to do with anger. Two seconds later Luke's hand is chopped off and he calmly says "There is no escape...".

Alderaan said:

*Vader doesn't calmly say "alert my star destroyer blah blah blah" when he's seething with rage.

That is one of the best changes in SE. The original scene with dumb anger mood completely contradicted the character of Vader as presented throughout the film. He was an intelligent villain, not some angry moron. Nothing seems to be able to upset him and that is what makes him even more cool.

He was being failed most clumsily by his officers and yet he showed no anger when he was executing them. On contrary, he did it with sarcasm, wit and style... making clam remarks like "Apology accepted, Captain Needa" while choking the guy to the death.

And the original scene also contradicted the scenes that follows. On the Star Destroyer, Vader is very clam and his primary emotion seem to be disappointment. There is no sign of any anger. He doesn't even choke Piett and instead he simply just leaves the bridge in silence.

knreuben said:

...continue to follow the traditions of the unaltered versions.

What tradition is that? No CGI?

knreuben said:

While the Special Edition connects with the Prequels....

Not the Special Edition...

Anchorhead said:

I'm an EU guy, so I know there is more and much better Star Wars to be told.  Lucas is just not the one capable of handling it.

Well... so far OT is the best we have. He may not have been capable for a while now, but he was back then.