n00b question but which Star Wars audio mix (if any) has the more common Aunt Beru dub and C-3PO's line about the tractor beam and the close the blast doors line?
edit: that's not a SE mix
That's because the Wii is a kiddy console *Sony/Microsoft fan boy rant* blah blah blah.
But seriously I don't think the Wii has the hardware. Myself from the outside looking in it seems people that play FPS want it for mulitplayer and the Wii doesn't support voice chat and isn't the most online friendly with friend codes and the like, no HD, frame rate issues, no hard drive equals no downloadable content/maps etc.
But I do agree with the Wii-mote as intuitive for FPS and that's why I think it's good for Goldeneye because it's done right. It helps that it's a Wii exclusives so the developer spent the time on it rather than a port.
I'm surprised I had to bump. Did anyone get this?
I'm not a gamer (I think the last game I played was New Super Mario Bros.) and I'm kind of over FPS and even though I never owned the original game or console I played multiplayer a lot on a friends N64. The reviews have been good so I picked it up last week.
I kind of have a man crush on I'm a fan of Daniel Craig so I like that aspect of the game and it would probably be way too complicated to organise to use and pay for the likeness of Brosnan and I also doubt Eon Productions would want to retread old territory especially with the success of Craig. Further to that there's no Sean Bean (which disappoints me most), Robbie Coltrane or Famke Janssen .
I'm still working through single player bit by bit and then need to organise some friends to come over to play 4 player split screen to sniper them in their heads.
I'm liking using the wii-mote as I'm not a fan of the analogue sticks (again not much of a gamer) which is why I don't play many FPS games.
Good point. That's what I choose to believe. But Joe Average might be confused. Poor Joe. If he even remembers Judi Dench.
While I certainly was fortunate enough to be a kid prior to the these internet machines I wasn't around in 1978 so thanks for putting some perspective on the speculation back then oldtimers.
I'm with The Boost on this. There's more concern in this thread for continuity than the actually people making these properties.
See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwyMB19q7ms
You don't want to be that kid. Trying to work out, or should I say make the continuity fit, for the Bond films, the Incredible Hulk films (now there's a new Banner in the Avengers - Mark Ruffalo) and Superman Returns will just give you an aneurysm.
I'm well aware of the fan theory about the possibility of James Bond being a sort of code name for certain OO agents but does that mean the CIA has an equivalent in Felix Leiter? No it's just fans being fans.
As a casual Bond viewer (I don't choose to watch the Moore films) I'm glad they kept Dame Judi around. Sure it completely f**ks up the reboot aspect of it but she's awesome so they'll keep her around as long as Dame Judi wants to be a part of them/make money.
Now I just want to talk Bond.
I want the third Craig film to feature a male Moneypenny. Each 'assistant' to Dench's M has been male so why stop now.
I don't know what to make of this.
http://www.retroist.com/2010/11/08/1978-style-star-wars-spoilers/
When the first Star Wars movie came out, my family was living in Sunnyvale, California. My mom quickly realized that, at 7 years old, I was a huge Darth Vader fan. Prior to seeing the movie, I incorrectly thought he was Darth Fader (allowing him to fade through walls and attack his victims). For this particular 7 year old, who had heard his friends speak of the movie, and tell of various Force powers, this fading ability made sense.
Anyway, my mother was good to keep an eye out for Star Wars news – and when this particular item showed up in our local paper, she cut it out for me. I still have it to this day. And, it was my first introduction to spoilers. In late 1978, David Prowse revealed that he was Luke’s father – two years before Empire Strikes Back hit theaters. In retrospect, I wonder how George Lucas felt about this. Since there was no internet in 1978, he probably never knew that David was running around spilling the beans. This article was quite the shock to my 7 year old system. Could this be correct? Were they related? Was David playing a joke? Was the post-Watergate media trustworthy? I had to wait two years to find out.
These days spoilers are pretty much inevitable. But, in 1978, this was big news. Eventually I decided that I believed the article, and shared the news with my friends. They mocked me for making up such a crazy idea. Luke related to Vader – simply impossible. A while later we moved, so I never got to gloat that I was right about this when Empire hit the theaters. They probably forgot all about it. But I was right. I have the article to prove it. Why didn’t I think of showing it to my friends back in 1978?
This article was published in 1978 and Prowse clearly already knows Luke is the son of Vader. Doesn't this go against everything that has been said about Prowse being kept in the dark as far as the big reveal ie the line of dialogue used on set being Obi Wan was your father etc?
If this is true I can see why the Lucas/Prowse grudge exists.
Ah ha, thanks Johnny Ringo. International viewers would have to watch it using an Australian proxy.
Last night I saw on Australian tv (ABC1 to be precise) a program call "A quiet word with Carrie Fisher". Basically it was a half hour interview with Fisher conducted by comedian/media personality Tony Martin done while Fisher is/was in Australia for her "Wishful Drinking" tour (I'm pretty sure it's still going on she's been here for months).
ABC is pretty good at putting its content online yet I don't see anything yet; video or transcript.
I found it pretty entertaining and I'd thought I share the interesting bits.
The greatest thing she revealed was whilst talking about some of the terrible movies she's made during the height of her drug addiction (movies I've never heard of) she mentioned that none are as bad as the Star Wars holiday special.
Tony and her joked how bad it is and she talked about how George has been going around "pulling" all copies from existence but she has one. Like a legit copy from Lucasfilm. She said she asked for one and was given one as part payment for doing the 2004 dvd commentaries. Go Carrie.
Semantics, but I'm interpreting her words though because she said it was part of her payment when she did "voice over" for the last re-release.
She commented on her coke habit and drug use during filming of ESB making headlines recently saying it's a pretty slow news day when it's a 30 year old story about an admitted drug addict. She also mentioned that the crew member she did coke with on ESB was her stand-in. Carrie said her name (the stand-in) wasn't "Suzy Coke" for nothing . I may have gotten the Suzy part wrong.
They talked about her writing and Postcards from the Edge and, this might not be interesting to anyone else but to me it is, her "script doctoring". When people do uncreditied script work it's usually not openly taked about so I love hearing anything about it.
She said she is usually brought in to punch up female characters (make them stronger characters, sassier and what not) and their dialogue and work on love scenes. Three projects she mentioned working on were Hook, Lethal Weapon 3 and Sister Act. No mention of The Phantom Menace but I could see George bringing her on to work on Padme making her more Leia like. I'm not going to comment on whether she succeed or failed in that regard.
When they talked about the endurance of the original Star Wars movies it was said it was down to the core three characters and the humour and personality she, Harrison and Mark infused them with. When Tony Martin criticised the new movies as failing in this regard where characters just seemed the be talking about trade tariffs and such Carrie didn't get on board with critising them only saying that George was creating a more visual experience.
That's all the Star Wars stuff the talked about but I'm not going to get into the rest like Carrie talking to Cary Grant about LSD and going on coke binges with John Belushi.
I'm partial to the term "reborquel" but sadly I didn't coin it. I think pajiba.com is responsible.
Hmmm.... no mentions of Squeakquels?
*quietly backs out of thread*
I should add it appears it was a private screening and no admission was charged for the screening. So there's not much Lucasfilm could do about it, right?
C. Robert Cargill (a.k.a Massawyrm) writer for Ain't It Cool News amongst other things was a guest on the Slashfilm podcast this week and he mentions that he just watched an original print of TESB for a friends birthday at a surprise screening in Austin in the past week or so.
He mentions Tim League so it's probable it was at the Alamo Drafthouse.
He's stats talking about it about 1 minute into the podcast: http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/10/26/ep-121-paranormal-activity-2-guest-robert-cargill-cool-news/
Also his tweet about it: http://twitter.com/Massawyrm/status/28481654293
I'm not on the twitter but if anyone as any questions about it I'm sure you could tweet him or just email him.
Who owns the print is anyone's guess. But kind of cool.
To reply to Anchorhead (mostly is regards to your Riddler post in the other thread): Nice theory (too bad it's already debunked) but in my version of hell Vincent Cassel would be the devil himself. I have an irrational fear of the man like you wouldn't believe. Yet I love the actor and can't stop watching his movies. The guy frightens the shit out of me and I'd probably drop dead if I ever met the guy.
Weird. I can't explain why. Fantastic actor I love him in anything yet I'm always apprehensive about seeing his movies. I don't know how I'm going to handle watching Black Swan were he plays a 'ballet teacher' yet I'm terrified by the thought.
Maybe it's the residual memory of him caving in a guys skull with a fire extinguisher. But the dude even scares me lurking in the shadows in Ocean's 13.
*deep breath*
To reply to ChainsawAsh: Obviously until this movie starts filming anything can happen but based on evidence it's likely that Two-Face is dead.
The script says so. Nolan has said so. And Nolan says he doesn't leave or hold back anything for a sequel. Harvey's arc is done. Which was all about Harvey's downfall not the proliferation of Two-Face's criminal life.
Which I thought would be the case exactly whilst watching TDK. But in pseudo-realistic terms it makes sense that someone with those kind of wounds untreated wouldn't last very long. Nor does the character of Two-Face in that universe intend to.
If Nolan changed his mind I wouldn't have a problem with that but with the TDK ending we got that doesn't make much sense.
Oh and also Aaron Eckhart himself said according to Nolan he won't be back. Of course Nolan is not the kind to person to divulge such secrets if he was intending to use him but that's all the info I've heard over the last couple of years.
That's fabulous!
Thanks for posting the audio Adywan.
Having it sound so human like is pretty silly considering it's 'supposed' to be the call of a beast. It makes it sound like a harmless old man having a bad acid trip.
Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:
I keep expecting to hear "wipe out!" at the end.
Nice!
Can anyone post the 2004 clip or audio? Youtube doesn't have it or I couldn't find it.
http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/features/2010/10/the-making-of-the-empire-strikes-back-201010?currentPage=all
Lazy hotlinking is lazy.
I do think the colours (spell it right god damn it) ;) will be fixed for blu-ray even with all evidence to the contrary.
I like what this thread has become.
I like that Temple of Doom is getting some love from the posters here.
That is all.
Ancorhead, I'd hate to give you an aneurysm but:
*whispers*
zombie84 said:
I always get a kick out of hearing complaints about 3D. It reminds me of the newspaper articles from when sound and then colour was invented. Literally, its almost verbatim the same sort of phrasing. Of course, a lot of early sound films had terrible, tinny audio, and some early colour films had poor, gimmicky colour effects. Done right, and done enough times, and you don't think about it as a gimmick because you aren't paying attention to it anymore. As far as 3D goes, most films try to draw attention to the effect, because that is why you are paying the premium price to see it. A lot of early sound and colour films had similar marketing philosophy. Then after a while, everyone was doing it, audiences got used to it, and then peope stopped trying to outdo each other in gimmicks and audiences simultaneously stopped paying conscious attention to it.
Ironically, the situation is now reversed--because people are used to colour and sound, if you do part of movie silent or in black and white, it is seen as being self-consciously stylistic, or maybe even gimmicky or pretentious. I have this sneaking suspicion that this will apply to 2D films ("flat pictures"?) at some point in the distant but not too distant future.
I disagree some what Zombie. I think the depth of field employed in 3D films can be pretty amazing when done. Up and How to Train Your Dragon was pretty fantastic.
Yes, it's not a gimmick. The filmmakers that take it seriously don't spend 90 minutes throwing crap at your face. But now that studios have seen the kind of dollars Avatar made they're watering down what the '3D revolution' should have been and are now just hastily and lazily using it across the board. That is, using it in a gimmicky fashion so they can charge more.
Some complain about the glasses. I wear glasses when I'm watching movies anyway (I'm short sighted) so I don't find them uncomfortable or distracting. The image is noticeably darker but a lot of cinemas have shitty set ups and the necessary recent upgrades and conversion to digital has probably done a lot of good.
What I do find distracting is being charged noticeably more for a movie. The last movie I saw in 3D was Toy Story 3. I walked out going that was a great movie but I should have seen it in 2D. The characters, story and animation were what made it amazing, not stuff thrown at you or depth of field. It was ridiculous what I was charged to see that movie. And I feel that's where the push is coming from to make 3D more mainstream or the norm. There's not much artistry in that.
I refer to my earlier comment about upcoming movies like True Grit and Black Swan. I'll see them at the local art house theatre (my theatre of choice) for $12 AUD. Compare that to $21.50 AUD for Toy Story 3 - fuck that.
I sound like an old man movie tickets are so expensive these days grrrrrr. It's not that. Some where in the back of my mind I just feel like I'm getting scammed. I gave it a shot. I tested the waters and I was willing to pay for the experience but I'm over that now.
Akwat Kbrana said:
SFW said:
He [John Knoll] also said they would ensure that the 3D conversion delivers results as good as a movie shot and authored in 3D
Darth Vader said:
The Emperor does not share your optimistic appraisal of the situation.
Bravo!
zombie84 said:
Lucas gets a break in cost, because its done in-house by ILM....
I read that Lucasfilm were farming out the conversion work to another company.
Regarding the yellow subs issue I can remember yellow subs in a video release or taped off television broadcast video I used to watch. But memory is a funny thing. Maybe it's a PAL thing as I'm Australian and have only ever seen a PAL release.
I have no way to verify this because I really couldn't be bothered to get out the vcr to check and the only videos I have that are still in working order are the 97 SE's.
The only 3D movies I've seen have been shot in 3D (Avatar) or have been animated (Toy Story 3, Up, How to Train your Dragon, Beowulf) and have been a pretty good experience. But I'm kind of over the 3D thing already. I'll see an Avatar type movie but the type of 3D employed in Toy Story 3 means I'll rather watch it in 2D and save some money.
I haven't seen any of the post-converted 3D movies not because I'm a 3D snob but because the movies looked garbage (Clash of the Titans, The Last Airbender) but from all the reports and reviews I've read the post conversion looks like crap even for the movies that it wasn't a rush job cash grab like the aforementioned titles.
So I don't see how any good can come from Star Wars in (post converted) 3D other than making Lucasfilm 6 more large piles of cash. And even then I don't think the first three will make as much they hope. Who will go see them other than die hards? The general public is definitely burnt out on the prequels. So maybe the final three won't even get released.
At the end of last year when a lot of movie nerds were bemoaning 3D cinema I was in favour of the wait and see approach but now I just wish it would go away. Sure Scorsese is making a 3D film movie and other big name director will experiment with it soon enough (Fincher, Scott) I highly doubt that my enjoyment of films like Black Swan, The Social Network and True Grit will be lessened by the fact that they are only in 2D.
Though I'll see Scorsese's Hugo Cabret because he shot it that way.
Oh wait I'll probably see Jackass 3D because... why not?
Harmy, no explanation necessary. Like one of the previous posters wrote - your work, your call.
The Rancor scenes look good enough. The shot of Boba Fett I previously mentioned, eh, not so much.
Can I ask what GKAR means? I know what it is, that is it refers to one of the three sources used for the edit along with the GOUT and '04 DVD I just don't know what the specifics are.
I watch the workprint last night. Well about a third and then I scanned through the rest (Endor and Death Star). I can only speak generally because I'm far from technical but the colours looked good (a big issue with me). Vader's lightsaber looks better. I agree on the letterboxing/ black bars issue that's been brought up.
I don't have the workprint on hand right now to reference but I thought the Jabba Palace dance sequence looked good enough. Maybe a little bit too much GOUT, but what's the alternative?
I'm as much as a purist as the next guy but I personally don't see the point of using the Rancor/Luke footage from the GOUT. The drop in quality to retain the matte lines I don't think is worth it. Of course whenever the theatrical ROTJ is truly restored I want to see matte lines but that's because it won't be at the expense of quality.
I think it's an unnecessary distraction. It's not like Adwayn's TESB reconstruction didn't have SE Snowspeeder recompositions.
The same could be said for the shot of Boba Fett flying across screen into the Sail Barge after being hit in the Jetpack. Sure they're different shots from OUT to SE but I think in essence they're the same thing. I can't believe I'm saying this.
I say this not to criticise, but because most of the Salaac/ Barge battle shots look great and the quality you've been able to maintain while removing cg tentacles etc is really impressive. It's just my opinion. I know this is your project, do what satisfies you, not just one random person on the internet.
Harmy regarding the expanding nature of this project, I imagine if all that was achieved with this project was colour correction, burnt in subs and a re-edit of the Jabba Palace, sail barge/sarlaac and end celebration sequences to match the theatrical this restoration would satisfy most people.
Of course they're are the additional cg shots like DSII blowing up, Vaders eyebrows Sarlaac and Banthas that will be addressed.
All the recompositions of the fx shots for various ships etc aren't that big of a deal if time and school are an issue. Adywan's TESB restoration should be the template and everyone loved that (including me) although it's not 100% theatrical version.
On a personal level, for me the shake in the burnt in subs makes my eyes hurt a little. Otherwise the samples uploaded to youtube look great.
And if you want one more set of eyes to look at the workprint send me a pm. I've been moving but I've now got the spare time.
