moviefreakedmind

May I ask what your credibility is?

DuracellEnergizer said:

skyjedi2005 said:

I believe Lucasfilm always intended to no longer make the original versions available again as early as 1994.

I agree. The whole "ONE LAST TIME" marketing campaign with the faces set certainly indicates to me that Lucas wasn't planning on re-releasing the OOT on any format after 1995. 

 Even that was ultimately a lie, no matter how crappy the GOUT was. 

As for Lucas' vision, I think it had more to do with keeping them current and 'updated' rather than actually fixing anything.

Fang Zei said:

Clive Revill making an appearance?

Shaw Anakin pins being sold?

I'm trying not to get my hopes up, but it's hard to not take this as some kind of sign....

 Well, the Lucasfilm people would have to know that inviting Revill, a man who was (regardless of credits) deleted from the film, would be opening a can of worms.

AntcuFaalb said:

I still don't see what's wrong with using an IP as the basis for restoration. Scanning the negative in this case just doesn't seem worth it to me.

 I would prefer that. The more straightforward things are then there will be less opportunities for anyone to mess things up

I hope the character of Gavyn Sykes is never included in another piece of Star Wars media again.

The actor seems like a nice man though, so I don't mind if he's in future movies

Fang Zei said:

The convention in Anaheim is just a few weeks away. There will doubtlessly be a lot of people there wondering the same thing we are. Disney/Lucasfilm can't expect it to go by without at least saying something about it. It's been almost two and a half years since the buyout and they haven't said a word. The elephant in the room has become too big to ignore.

This is why i think that we'll get some sort of quality presentation of the OOT on blu ray, maybe not a restoration on the same scale as 1997, but at least a transfer on par with most acceptable blu rays released today. I think that it would be too insulting to the fans to just pretend that the OOT has no place in the franchise; I think they'll give in and release a blu ray just to shut us up, and as long as the transfers are good, I'd gladly stop bashing the franchise.

Mavimao said:

CatBus said:

By my count, that gives Harmy every damn thing I ever wanted him to have.  Except for lots of free time to put it all together.

Does this mean that the next ROTJ (and next ESB) releases will both be GOUT-free?  I wonder what the lowest-quality source would then be: are there any bits from the 97SE DVDs, or would the 2004SE HD broadcast now be the worst bits?  If so, quite a change from when this project started...

 Let's see... There's Jabba's palace door. The shot of Bobba Fett during the barge battle. Those shots would necessitate the pre-bluray versions. 

 Not to mention all shots of ewoks because of the blinking

Are the copies of TMP and WOK available for rental on Amazon streaming the Director's Cuts, or are they the theatricals? I'm assuming that TMP is the theatrical, but I'm not sure about the other one. It's been so long since I've seen the director's cut of WOK that I'm starting to forget what was different from the original. 

I'm so tired of comic book movies. They've made so many of them that I just can't bring myself to watch one ever again, or at least not until I've had a break for a while

RicOlie_2 said:

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

RicOlie_2 said:

DominicCobb said:

March 10:

A.D. 2015: RicOlie2 suddenly realizes how long it's been since he last updated this thread.

 LOL, I stopped after awhile because there was almost no interest in this thread and I things were getting busy.

 I'm interested! If this thread didn't exist then I would have created my own. Not necessarily about specific events tied to the date, but a history discussion thread nonetheless.

 Well, it's nice to have someone taking interest for a change. Of course, I've had several people pop by, but none have really been interested in a real conversation about the history.

I only began to take a serious interest in history a couple years ago, having been failed entirely by the public school system in that regard, and did an overview of world history during my two years of homeschooling.

hmm,  I didn't think you'd be a in a public school or be homeschooled.  I assumed you being a Catholic, would be going to a Catholic school.

Actually, I did go to a Catholic school for two and a half years, but the Catholic schools were the public schools in the city I was in, up until a couple years ago. I have homeschooled for a total of six years, for various reasons, but it's fairly common for Christians who are serious about their religion, being that the Catholic schools are only superficially so most of the time. I also lived in a tiny village for the first ten years of my life, and regular school wasn't easily accessible (and we knew/were related to the people running the homeschooling organization in the area).

 Yeah, it's like that a lot of times in the states too. Christian schools (probably catholic schools too, I'm not sure) are rarely very immersed in the religion other than a Bible class. Usually christian families homeschool or just send their kids to public school; there are a few exceptions of course but that has been my experience for the most part.

RicOlie_2 said:

Not much history gets attention today. Not in schools, anyway. I knew very little besides Canadian history before grade 8 thanks to the wonderful curriculum used in Alberta (which is similar throughout Canada, I’m sure). The only reason I know any now is because I stopped going to school. 😛

We didn’t have any real history in the curriculum but state history and a few really random social studies based on continents. I think we randomly started learning about American history in 5th grade and then in 9th we did Ancient History which I think was the origin of man up to the beginning of the Renaissance. After that I started taking college history classes so I’m not sure what they did from then on

DuracellEnergizer said:

skyjedi2005 said:

Does anyone else feel that the next Star Trek will be the last with the current cast. 

I get a sense some of the actors may want to move on.

*crosses finger that this'll happen and lead to a reboot, a reboot that won't be Trek in name only this time around*

 I definitely imagine this is the last one with the current cast, but I doubt we'll ever get movies that are like the TOS movies ever again. I think studios worry that mainstream audiences won't accept anything Trek related that isn't some sort of action comedy. The only way this could happen is if they make a new TV series that reaches the same success as TNG and then that is translated into actual sci-fi films

RicOlie_2 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

RicOlie_2 - What are some of your favorite historical time periods to study? Mine are the Roman Empire, French Revolution/Napoleonic era, the mid to late 1800s in the U.S. and the World Wars and the Cold War. Everything during and after the 1980s is interesting too but it's getting dangerously close to my birth year so I don't like to think of any of it as history ;)

 It varies, but I take a frequent interest in ancient Middle Eastern history, particularly Egypt and Babylonia. I'm also interested in the late Middle Ages and Renaissance. Other things I'm interested mostly because one hears relatively little about them, such as Ancient China/Japan (and the rest of the Far East), or what was happening around the world during periods when we tend to focus a lot on one area--usually Europe. Most of the time it's because there isn't really much to be told, but sometimes it's simply because it's less relevant or considered less interesting. For instance, I've hear a fair bit about the colonization period of America, but far less about that of Australia, or South America, or Africa.

The colonization of Africa is particularly overlooked. During the late 1800s and early 1900s European empires colonized the vast majority of the continent, and it was a real bloodbath at times. I remember reading about how over 5 million Congolese people died during Belgium's first attempt to colonize the Congo. It's sad that it doesn't get a lot of attention today, it's skimmed over to an extreme.

RicOlie_2 said:

DominicCobb said:

March 10:

A.D. 2015: RicOlie2 suddenly realizes how long it's been since he last updated this thread.

 LOL, I stopped after awhile because there was almost no interest in this thread and I things were getting busy.

 I'm interested! If this thread didn't exist then I would have created my own. Not necessarily about specific events tied to the date, but a history discussion thread nonetheless.

doubleofive said:

bkev said:

Netflix has the old masters and they are really, really interlaced.  It looks fine on a TV but for some reason on my laptop they look atrocious.  As for DS9, it looks fine, but I can't wait for the remasters.

I think Amazon has the exclusive streaming rights to the TNG remasters.

Bkev is 100% correct. Amazon has TNG-R, TOS-R, and TOS original. Pretty nifty.

Thanks bkev and doubleofive. Sounds like I'll be getting Amazon Instant for a while, TNG remastered is well worth the 8 dollars 

Does anyone here watch DS9 or TNG on Netflix I've been re-watching TOS on Netflix lately to appreciate Nimoy's contributions to the franchise, and the episodes look great. TNG looks awful on my screen though for some reason, and is all choppy and fuzzy and look like I'm watching a youtube video. DS9 has problems like this too but not nearly as bad as TNG. I don't understand this because recently TNG had blu rays released that (from what I've seen) look pretty good, not to mention TNG is very popular and I'd imagine would have an audience on Netflix. Is this a netflix problem or a problem with my technology and can it be fixed? Does anyone else have problems with this? I reported it to Netflix, but havent heard anything

RicOlie_2 - What are some of your favorite historical time periods to study? Mine are the Roman Empire, French Revolution/Napoleonic era, the mid to late 1800s in the U.S. and the World Wars and the Cold War. Everything during and after the 1980s is interesting too but it's getting dangerously close to my birth year so I don't like to think of any of it as history ;)

Post Praetorian said:

Do you remember anything dishonestly?

I don't think so, but I recently had people in my life describe me as either a "really down to earth guy, or someone who may or may not be lying about everything he says," so I sometimes feel the need to emphasize my honesty. Also because my sentence could have been construed as trying to start a debate about the quality of Saving Private Ryan when in reality I just genuinely wanted to know what he was referring to.   

Ryan McAvoy said:

RicOlie_2 said:

In Saving Private Ryan (which I need to finish watching some time--I started it at a friend's house and never finished), the gore is not shown just for shock value. It shows the horror of war rather than glorifying violence and making it look fun and exciting like most war shows do.

Don't bother with finishing watching it then, as elements of the second half very moch glorify war, which was a bit wierd IMO. If you've seen the shocking beach assault then you've seen the best that film has to offer.

 I would actually very much like to hear what parts of the second half glorify war because I don't remember anything like that in the film honestly. 

Well, it may not be any sort of indication to a future OOT blu ray, photos like that do reveal that today's Lucasfilm isn't so afraid of acknowledging the original craftsmanship of the films.  

Yeah that's definitely an on-set photograph taken during the filming

I still have VHS. I don't use it much but I hung on to my old tapes from when I was a kid.

imperialscum said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Also, given the things you say with complete seriousness, how were we supposed to know that this comment was an attempt at humor?

Well it kinda defeats the purpose if you have to specifically state that something is a humour.

It is also a failure at comedy when a joke is so terribly unfunny that no one can tell if it was even an attempt at humor.

imperialscum said:

DominicCobb said:

imperialscum said:

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

imperialscum said:

Anyway I am way too young to know rock albums. Even vinyl albums predates me.

 I bet I'm about your age or younger, and I have a somewhat extensive knowledge of classic rock.

 Yeah, same.

You two didn't get the joke here...

And you can both have a gold medal in knowing "classic rock" more than me. I am into Jazz anyway.

Do you know what the word joke means? 

I guess it really didn't classify as a joke but rather as a sophisticated humour. Too sophisticated, judging by your serious reply.

Sophisticated really should have about twenty quotation marks around it. It wasn't a joke, it wasn't funny, and it wasn't sophisticated. Also, given the things you say with complete seriousness, how were we supposed to know that this comment was an attempt at humor?

imperialscum said:

Anyway I am way too young to know rock albums. Even vinyl albums predates me.

 I bet I'm about your age or younger, and I have a somewhat extensive knowledge of classic rock.