moviefreakedmind

The most damning thing you can say about Lucas is that he’s opposed to the availability of certain films, and that’s a big problem and I’ve criticized him relentlessly for that over the years, but I don’t believe that he would demand the films not be restored. I won’t get my hopes up just yet because it is very possible that Disney will just continue to ignore the existence of the pre-SE versions of these films, but I will say that this seems to be, by far, the most credible rumor yet. It also lends a little more credibility to the past rumors if it’s true that they’ve been working on the restoration since 2014, which is when all the nonstop rumors started up.

DrDre said:

Fang Zei said:

The part about “Four discs per film for the 4k, three for the standard blu” made my heart sink a little, since that might mean they’re once again going to give the two different versions unequal treatment, with the 4k UHD only including the SE in 4k and relegating the unaltered version to 1080p.

When we have actual 4k transfers of these movies made by the fans and LFL actually has the ability to do us one better with a professional cleanup from a scan of higher quality elements only they possess, it would be a real shame if they gave us the OOT only to lock it into a level of quality from 13 years ago. Deja vu, man.

Again, this is assuming anything in this article isn’t total clickbait bs. The timing makes it highly suspect.

My guess is, that they will respect Lucas’ wishes by not restoring the OOT as a whole. What they might possibly do, is to release a whole bunch of restored unreleased footage at 1080p, and in those same extras include the restored OOT scenes.

I’m not convinced that those are exactly his wishes. Lucas is not against film restoration.

Fang Zei said:

ChainsawAsh said:

That’s what he’s saying - disc 1 would be the SE in 4K, disc 2 the SE in 1080p, disc 3 the OT in 1080p, and disc 4 is extras (in 1080p). The standard BR release would just drop the 4K disc.

Exactly, which would once again be giving the two versions unequal treatment (both versions get 1080p but only the SE gets released on UHD).

Honestly, I wouldn’t complain at this point. If I got a good restoration of the original trilogy in 1080p all from original film elements done right, then I’m going to be a happy camper. If that’s what this release turns out to be then I hope that people don’t boycott it based purely on that.

It makes me wonder why they select such hideous cover art when it would presumably be cheaper just to use existing poster art, which often looks far superior. I don’t get it. What corporate focus group thinks that Batman Returns of all things would sell better if it had that as its artwork?

If we’re counting the SEs then I guess the worst moment in all of the Star Wars movies that I’ve seen is the dance number in Jabba’s palace. Not including the SEs I’d probably say the CGI Peter Cushing stuff in Rogue One. Either that or my initial choice of the droid assembly line in Clones.

I don’t know. The only other one I’ve seen was the 1980s one with Willie Nelson and Johnny Cash.

Was it a Kubrick double feature event?

The only two I’ve seen are The Shining and The Wizard of Oz.

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

Continuing my western kick with Stagecoach. Really fun!

The John Ford/John Wayne one?

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

June titles announced, including…

…War and Peace!!!

I would love to get that. It’s good to see that they take their suggestions seriously.

It might just be purely because it’s a little bit cheaper most of the time. As for Criterion, I don’t know. They’ve commented on it before, I believe, but I agree that it seems strange that people buying Criterion films would want a DVD over a blu-ray, especially since most of the more mainstream films in their catalogue have been released in DVD editions by their respective studios at some point anyway.

I got Red River and A Brief History of Time during their sale, both blu-rays of course. I always get blu-rays unless for whatever reason they’ve only released it on DVD.

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

moviefreakedmind said:

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

Moonraker sucks

It does if you expect nothing but the utmost realism from your James Bond movies, which seems to be your case.

I don’t think any Bond movie meets that standard.

E.g., I’m quite fond of the Sky Who Loved Me as well

If the sky really loved me then the sun wouldn’t be so goddamned bright all the time.

America is full of theocrats. There’s supposed to be a strict separation of church and state, but when most of our population gladly votes for people that are opposed to that separation, then we don’t get it.

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

Moonraker sucks

It does if you expect nothing but the utmost realism from your James Bond movies, which seems to be your case.

Now that I’m thinking about it, I think that FYEO suffers most from a very weak villain and villain plot. Julian Glover and Charles Dance are great actors but they don’t have much character to work with. I would’ve enjoyed at least a Dr. No or Goldfinger style villain. Glover’s character really does just feel like some guy that’s up to no good. Not much of a Bond villain. Living Daylights has a similar problem with its villains.

In that sense For Your Eyes Only may be the most important Bond film, at least after the Connery era. I’m glad they felt the need to scale things back, even if they toned down the camp a little too much for my taste. I like Moonraker better, but I think that it would’ve ruined the series if they kept heading that way. Honestly, I really want to watch FYEO now. 😃

SilverWook said:

Ernst Stavros Blofeld sock detected. 😉

I still love it, I just don’t think that Moore’s Bond was suited well for the gritty, grounded scripts. I also tend to gravitate towards the sillier Bond films anyway.

Seriously though, could even 007 get away with dispatching a wheelchair bound villain in today’s PC world?

I think it would depend on how evil the villain was established to be. If he just shot him in a gunfight, e.g. like he did to Stromburg in Spy Who Loved Me, then it’d probably be okay. If he chased him down, picked him up, and threw him from a high height then probably not.

It’s easily the most boring of the Roger Moore Bonds in my opinion.

dahmage said:

moviefreakedmind said:

chyron8472 said:

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

paja said:

Today’s that Polish holiday where you’re supposed to eat a bunch of donuts.

Fat Tuesday is next week.

I’m going to abstain from video games for Lent.

I thought you weren’t catholic.

Lent is observed by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lent

I always thought it was only observed by Catholics. I’m opposed to it. My goals are to work as little as possible and to experience as much personal enjoyment as possible. Sacrificing things conflicts heavily with those goals.

chyron8472 said:

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

paja said:

Today’s that Polish holiday where you’re supposed to eat a bunch of donuts.

Fat Tuesday is next week.

I’m going to abstain from video games for Lent.

I thought you weren’t catholic.

I love every single Bond movie except for Quantum of Solace and Spectre. I gained new appreciation for Quantum after seeing Spectre, though. That movie was a trainwreck. The first hour or so wasn’t bad, but it easily has the worst script of any film in the franchise. Bond and Blofeld being brothers is like the stuff of parody.

SilverWook said:

Exactly. I’d say that at least five Bond films before License to Kill alone feel like total self-parodies.

Goldfinger.

I don’t see how the tanker truck chase is any more ludicrous than Pussy Galore’s Flying Circus.

How is License to Kill a parody? The first one to feel like a parody to me was Diamonds are Forever.

I want to watch a Bond movie. I’m taking suggestions; which one should I watch? (I’m up for anything but Spectre.)