imperialscum

DominicCobb said:

People are really stretching the term "competing." 

Well the term itself is stretched in this particular case. There really isn't any kind of actual direct competition between films. Except maybe for the annual film awards. And hypothetically one stealing the profit of the other, but that doesn't really apply since it doesn't take a fortune to just see both. Both of which would then limit the entire thing to films released in the same year.

I assumed it meant a competition in terms of popularity in a given genre among the film fans.

TV's Frink said:

imperialscum said:

TV's Frink said:

You who prefer the 97 SE are in the extreme minority.  There's no reason for Disney to release it because no one will buy it.  Hell, they probably don't even know about it.

I am aware of that. It would be for the sake of completeness.

However making that kind of argument also goes against the release of theatrical versions. Yes there are more people who want the theatrical versions, but still not that many. Looking purely from a financial benefit, it would be more profitable for Disney to spend the money required for restoration into making some stand-alone film or series and get way more money out of it.

 Find me ninetysevensetrilogy.com and then we can talk.  The comparison is apples to dust specks.

Please at least TRY to understand the post...

I basically agreed with you about the fact that incomparably more people desire theatrical versions than 1997. The point of my post was that even though more people would buy theatrical release, there are way more profitable ways for Disney to make profit than that. Which pretty much labels the restoring and releasing the thing primarily a preservation effort. And in that aspect, it falls in the same category as restoring 1997 (as darklordoftech argued, for 1997 it might even take no extra expenses).

In the end, putting the two restored versions together would finally make a decent Star Wars release (comparable to Alien trilogy, Bladerunner etc.).

Goodfellas (1990) and Casino (1995)

Obviously these two are practically from the same director/cast. I do believe they are the very best of their genre. Personally I prefer Casino. I don't know, I just like its setting more. A more glamorous feel of Las Vegas compared to the crude New York from Goodfellas.

Chinatown (1974) and L.A. Confidential (1997)

I bent the thread rule here since their release dates are more than 20 years apart. I find them very similar and, like the previous examples, I regard these two as the best in the crime/mystery genre. Here I am unable to pick a favourite. What I really like about them is the setting, i.e. Los Angeles in 30' and 50', respectively. To me they kinda created this image of "America" as an European would imagine it.

crissrudd4554 said:

Well for me there's two SE's. 1997 and 2004. 2011 version just doesn't exist to me.

2004 and 2011 are versions with PT parasites. I think those versions are basically viable for someone who likes PT.

TV's Frink said:

You who prefer the 97 SE are in the extreme minority.  There's no reason for Disney to release it because no one will buy it.  Hell, they probably don't even know about it.

I am aware of that. It would be for the sake of completeness.

However making that kind of argument also goes against the release of theatrical versions. Yes there are more people who want the theatrical versions, but still not that many. Looking purely from a financial benefit, it would be more profitable for Disney to spend the money required for restoration into making some stand-alone film or series and get way more money out of it.

crissrudd4554 said:

Going back to how people are discussing what should stay and go I'll admit I'm one of those people where I want everyone to be happy. We must understand that there are as many SE followers as OUT fans. My view is that both should be packaged together similar to how they were in '06 but of course featuring the restored original! That way its even for everyone. :)

"Both" doesn't sounds correct in this case. There are 3 major versions of the OT besides theatrical. If they aren't going to release all versions in high resolution then not everyone will be happy. My favourite is 1997 SE, and if the rumours are true about theatrical version being restored, then I and others who prefer 1997 seem to be in the worst position at this moment.

RicOlie_2 said:

someperson said:

All right, I've watched AOTC, and I didn't care for it at all. Some of you may be about to call me crazy, but I think it's an even weaker movie than TPM. This surprised me, since I don't recall thinking that way when I was younger.

 I think there's a general consensus that that's the worst of the three. A lot of people like TPM the best, while many others like ROTS the best. I have yet to come across anyone who likes AOTC better than the other two.

Primary reason why I think AOTC is the worst is because Anakin is the most annoying in AOTC.

Darth Malgus. I like a Sith with some common sense.

DominicCobb said:

imperialscum said:

TV's Frink said:

imperialscum said:

It is rumour in English.

 English is a point of view.

The thing you speak in America is the Special Edition of original English, made by a third party. As a comparison, Star Wars Special Edition at least has some merit since it was not made by a third party.

The difference between rumor and rumour is like the difference between Greedo shooting first and Greedo not shooting at all.

The thing you speak is closer to what we speak in America than original English, or even the English that was spoken when our nations parted. 

Of course but that is not the point I was making. So to adjust the comparison, one is director's cut and the other is fan edit.

TV's Frink said:

imperialscum said:

It is rumour in English.

 English is a point of view.

The thing you speak in America is the Special Edition of original English, made by a third party. As a comparison, Star Wars Special Edition at least has some merit since it was not made by a third party.

The difference between rumor and rumour is like the difference between Greedo shooting first and Greedo not shooting at all.

JT 1138 said:

imperialscum said:

Bobocop said:

It would be ironic and somehow fitting if the originals were fully restored from the O-neg in glorious 4K and brought back into the spotlight, while the "superior" Special Editions were stuck at 2K resolution because of the limitations of the technology used at the time.

I'd love to the the SE's 20 year reign of terror end as it fades away into just a curious footnote in film history.

The only release labelled as Special Edition was the 1997. That release got pretty much the least care of all releases. The Special Edition is not stuck at 2K but rather in LD format.

It may not be technically accurate, but it seems like most folks refer to the '04 and '11 editions as the SE's. 

Just because most do it wrong, doesn't make it right.

Bobocop said:

It would be ironic and somehow fitting if the originals were fully restored from the O-neg in glorious 4K and brought back into the spotlight, while the "superior" Special Editions were stuck at 2K resolution because of the limitations of the technology used at the time.

I'd love to the the SE's 20 year reign of terror end as it fades away into just a curious footnote in film history.

The only release labelled as Special Edition was the 1997. That release got pretty much the least care of all releases. The Special Edition is not stuck at 2K but rather in LD format.

It is rumour in English.

G E Predator said:

My apologies, but I thought this forum was about "What we like about the Prequels."

I am sorry. I guess we ran out of "What we like about the Prequels".

Ryan McAvoy said:

Sadly Hayden didn't have the experience to cope without a good director to nudge him the right directions performance wise. The rest of the cast coped better to varing degrees on their own, depending on their experience. Tellingly the old pros managed to cope the best.

If Hayden had a good director, or Lucas hired somebody who had enough chops to just ignore him, then it might have been different. What we got was the blind leading the blind.

Quite false I would say. The directing was the least of a problem with PT. The first and foremost problem was the script. If the character is written as an unlikeable jerk (i.e. Anakin) or has laughable dialogue (i.e. Anakin and Padme) then the director and actor cannot do much about it within the limits of their job.

The simple reason why other actors seemed to have fared batter is that thier characters were better written or at least had some attractive characteristics (for example Obi-Wan and Palpatine).

When it comes to Lucas, his primary weakness is and has always been dialogue writing. I wouldn't say he a great actor director but judging from his first 3 films, he isn't a bad one either.

darklordoftech said:

If someone decides to call themselves a "Sith", I'll walk out of the theater, throw away my Star Wars stuff, and cease to be a Star Wars fan.

Don't you think that is a bit silly. It is like if someone stopped being a fan of Star Wars because PT was awful.

darklordoftech said:

imperialscum said:

darklordoftech said:

imperialscum said:

pablumatic said:

darklordoftech said:

imperialscum said:

darklordoftech said:

and I'll never get the hypocrites who think that the Empire returning is worse than the Sith returning.

Well Empire returning is just as bad as Sith returning. 

I understand thinking that it's just as bad. What I don't understand is thinking that it's worse.

 Sith returning I can see as being possible.

True.

For Sith to return it takes just a single force user to start calling himself a "Sith".

While Empire was a very complex structure consisting of countless words, people and sub-organisations.

So purely from the plausibility perspective, Empire returning is indeed much worse than Sith returning.

Take a look at the subsequent posts. I point out that it's just as easy for someone to start calling themselves an "Imperial".

The difference is that if some force user starts calling himself a "Sith" it essentially classify as Sith return, while even if an entire planet/sector starts calling themselves "Imperial" would not come even close to Empire return.

Even if it's not the Empire returning, Imperials can return.

I'd rather we don't get people deciding to call themselves a "Sith" or an "Imperial". It's a cheap and contrived way to bring back a dead faction. If they want Sith or Imperials to appear, I'd rather that they be connected to those of I-VI.

Well I am not a fan of either returning. I was just arguing against your original statement.

darklordoftech said:

imperialscum said:

pablumatic said:

darklordoftech said:

imperialscum said:

darklordoftech said:

and I'll never get the hypocrites who think that the Empire returning is worse than the Sith returning.

Well Empire returning is just as bad as Sith returning. 

I understand thinking that it's just as bad. What I don't understand is thinking that it's worse.

 Sith returning I can see as being possible.

True.

For Sith to return it takes just a single force user to start calling himself a "Sith".

While Empire was a very complex structure consisting of countless words, people and sub-organisations.

So purely from the plausibility perspective, Empire returning is indeed much worse than Sith returning.

Take a look at the subsequent posts. I point out that it's just as easy for someone to start calling themselves an "Imperial".

The difference is that if some force user starts calling himself a "Sith" it essentially classify as Sith return, while even if an entire planet/sector starts calling themselves "Imperial" it would not come even close to Empire return.

pablumatic said:

darklordoftech said:

imperialscum said:

darklordoftech said:

and I'll never get the hypocrites who think that the Empire returning is worse than the Sith returning.

Well Empire returning is just as bad as Sith returning. 

I understand thinking that it's just as bad. What I don't understand is thinking that it's worse.

 Sith returning I can see as being possible.

True.

For Sith to return it takes just a single force user to start calling himself a "Sith".

While Empire was a very complex structure consisting of countless words, people and sub-organisations.

So purely from the plausibility perspective, Empire returning is indeed much worse than Sith returning.

Some time ago I watched Mel Gibson's Apocalypto. I can say it is one of my favourite films of the last 15 years.

darklordoftech said:

and I'll never get the hypocrites who think that the Empire returning is worse than the Sith returning.

Well Empire returning is just as bad as Sith returning. However I wouldn't mind some remnants of the Empire surviving. Still the best potential for that scenario would be time set within 10 years after ROTJ.

Tyrphanax said:

Also: Behold, the Washlet.

It is just amazing.

A wet-cement like poo chunks can only be removed from your rear with a decent amount of water. Any kind of paper or wet tissue are ineffective against that kind of particular composition. Unless you want to spend half a roll on it and scratch your rear. If there are any hair, things are even more impossible.

For me Clone Wars was a casual conflict fought between Republic and some other faction. I always imagined that the name "Clone" simply came from some cloning incident that triggered the war. I have never imagined something as stupid and boring as clone armies (which is one of the worst concepts of PT btw).

thorr said:

I don't want predictability.  One of the great things about Star Wars was not knowing what would happen next or where it would be.

I don't care one bit about unpredictability since it is a very temporary and short-living quality. Especially I don't want unpredictability at expense of more permanent of qualities storyline. Basically unpredictability loses all its value after the first view.

And the main beauty of the original trilogy was that people were able to view it hundred of times and still enjoyed it.

Carthage said:

Battlefront 1.

TOR and KOTOR are crap

Quite the opposite.

I can't really play games like Battlefront any more. By that I mean the kind of games that have several maps and several gametypes and you play them over and over again. Boring.

The only games I play now are storyline-based games. They are an equivalent of reading a book or watching a film.

Playing Battlefront type of games seems like reading a text in some book over and over again just for the sake of, well, reading the text (perhaps with an objective to read it as fast or as loud as you can). While playing KOTOR type of games is like reading a text of the book for the purpose of experiencing the story and characters.