see you auntie

Slightly off topic but still on the point of ROTJ - Is the GOUT transfer the best of the trilogy?

From a non-technical perspective I find that out of the three I can watch it with the most ease. In saying that I can watch all of them but to me Jedi has the least issues.

CO, do you own the GOUT?

Oh sure thaty's fine. But I was just comparing SW sequels. Because personally I see it a bit as apples and oranges.

SW being the first has the 'burden' of having to set up the world (or in this case universe) that the film is set in, so it can be excused a bit for being slow going. I've never had that problem as the opening scene should be enthralling enough for you, then the Jawas holy crap. I was both terrified and enthralled by them as a child. Oh did I mention the talking robots!

ESB being a sequel certainly didn't have that problem, we were familiar with the universe it was set in, knew who Luke, Han and Leia were and why Vader/Empire were looking for them it took full advantage of that wasting no time to put them in peril. One of the reasons why it's a freaking great film (and sequel).

I still think it's pretty lame the beginning of Jedi was set on Tatooine. Jabba could of been from any planet but as discuused a little while ago in another thread the end of ESB ruined that ;)

edit: Great topic by the way. It's got us talking about films we love* not bitching about ones we don't^. It's got some old school posters in here mixed with some new. The last topic like this that comes to mind was the one previously mentioned on the Han recue attempt even though I saw through all that nonsense ;).

*Some don't

^A generalisation. Not speaking about everyone.

I just knew when I opened the topic that the Palace rescue plan would be bought up, it didn't take long at all ;) I'll mention a couple of things and tell me if they aren't "moments"

- Luke throwing down his lightsaber in defiance to the Emperor " I am a Jedi" blah blah you know the rest....

- Vaders funeral pyre (close to the binary sunset in my opinion)

Yeah yeah yeah they both take place in the finale, so what?

Sluggo bought up ROTJ being slow but one could argue the ESB especially for children is slow. Admittedly after a stellar opening all you get before the final duel is a chase in the asteroids. Now this is not a criticism (it's the 'slow' moments that allow for meaning and character) it's extremely dumbing it down but as a kid maintenance and repairs on the Falcon hardly got me excited.

The only dull part for me is between the end of the speeder bike chase and the beginning of the infiltration of the bunker. The ewok battle can be bland but the fact that it alternates between the space battle and the throne room, although a little schizophrenic, more than passes the time.

The ROTJ space battle is pretty epic but loses points for unoriginality. Yet I think that is more than made up for by the Speeder Bike chase and Rancor. Even if you dislike the whole Jabba sequence you got to love the Rancor, right?.

Luke's arrival at Jabba's Palace shrouded in mystery was badass wasn't it and you can't deny that when Luke's new lightsaber shoots out of R2 freaking D2 it doesn't get the blood pumping?

CO brought up the focus on Vader in ROTJ and having to sympathise with what is essentially the villain. I never sympathised with Vader or felt sorry for him, if that's the intent of the film so be it, I see it more as empathising with Luke.

Imagine Luke's torment as he finds out his father who he believed was a hero turns out to be the galaxy's biggest evil. He so longs for a father figure he never had. He clutched at Obi Wan if only briefly, it would be mighty tempting to side with Vader if only for that validation when all else you've stood for has been for good. This is only possible because of Vader, it's not about him as I see it.

ROTJ is Luke's plight, Vader gets Luke where he needs to be, he's a living (or not so much) example of the wrong choices for Luke to make. Luke's belief in good as exemplified by his belief in the good in Vader is what makes him the hero (and Jedi) that he is. It's what saved him more importantly metaphorically from the Emperor even if it was what saved him also literally.

Which brings me to another point. ROTJ is with out a doubt Luke's movie. As Luke was my hero as a kid it's probably the reason why I love ROTJ so much. To make a generalisation I guess you could say that if you are a Han devotee you favor ESB and if Luke is your hero as he was mine you love ROTJ. Not to make this a ESB vs ROTJ debate; ESB is the superior film.

But I guess that's where ROTJ loses further points, the fact that Han and Leia are pushed to the side although ROTJ does further solidify Lando's badassness.

While I would agree that out of the 3 films ROTJ is (relatively speaking) the worst, I would argue that it does have plenty of moments and I've saved my ace for last, a moment that can not be argued with and trumps all others - "IT'S A TRAP!"

And....

Yub Nub for life!

edit: while I was taking my sweet time making this post Mielr beat me to it in rgards to certain points.

Someone reading /film much?

That's two posts now, are you Peter Sciretta?

I have nothing to add at this point, I just wanted to say that upon clicking on this topic I thought it was going to be a post about the ROTJ controversy. I guess I should have done more than just scan the title.

Oh and Peter Sarsgaard is wicked good in that movie.

And a hearty chuckle to all you who have seen Awake and Jumper. Fucking why?

C3PX said:

....... (not to belittle him too much though, he did make one hell of a cake back in his day!)

And that's why I'm hungry ;)

C3PX the only way I'll be able to fully grasp your story and the concept behind it is if you can tell me if this Jorge Lewis baker guy is an analogy for another man?

Cause I'm thinking his name is pronounced ?Xorxe/ Hoar-hey. Or maybe it's more of a hard "J" like James.

Oh well I'll study it a bit more until you get back to me, but this Jorge Lewis guy sounds like a bit of an ass.

Anyone else feel like some chocolate cake?

Hilariously good  post by the way

AxiaEuxine said:

see you auntie said:

I find it ironic that on the new cover the stars are less visible or all together gone.

Other than that I wish you the best of luck with your project as long as these new edits are alternatives to the originals and aren't intended to replace them ;)

The star field is easier to see if you hit the link for the original size and not one made to fit this forum better.

well I dont own the originals so I cant replace the originals with any thing I might do. I assume your comment is Lucas bashing Special edition inspired?

 

Regarding the Star Field remark - duely noted.

As for the rest the comment was simply made tongue in cheek, but I'm not bashing.

How am I bashing or more so how can one misconstrue that comment as Lucas bashing when one simply wishes that an alternative or special edition not replace the original, shouldn't they both be allowed to co-exist?

Nanner Split said:

Just completely disconnect yourself from anything new and Star Wars-related. It worked for me. The last new Star Wars thing I absorbed was Revenge of the Sith in theatres, which was nearly four years ago. Other than TMBTM's Star Wars Silent Film Edition edit, I haven't watched any of the prequels since then, just the OT. It's worked brilliantly for me, especially since I've only seen RotS once (seen the other two a handful of times each). I barely remember anything about them.

+1. Good post.

I find it ironic that on the new cover the stars are less visible or all together gone.

Other than that I wish you the best of luck with your project as long as these new edits are alternatives to the originals and aren't intended to replace them ;)

"I Don't Give A Shit Where The Stuff I Love Comes From. I Just Love The Stuff I Love." - Patton Oswalt

This couldn't be more applicable then right here. As far as I'm concerned Chewie is Han's Co-Pilot/ Best Friend/ Partner in Crime. That's it, it was more than evident on screen.

And this is also a good reason why I strongly dislike the EU (and to a certain extent you can add the PT to this too), because you don't need to explain or have explained to you every little detail from the OT. There's a reason it wasn't apart of the original movies because chances are it was either contrived or really boring.

edit: time for a new sig.

I thought you could shed some light on these so called props that I'm sure you're aware of already:

http://cgi.liveauctions.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=52933&item=330287953444

http://cgi.liveauctions.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=52933&item=330287953452

http://cgi.liveauctions.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=52933&item=260318684251

In particular Luke's lightsaber. I was always under the impression that a different prop was used between SW and ESB and in fact subtle changes were made. You've outed other props as frauds here before and I thought you could help.

I checked out another forum you've linked to before http://www.therpf.com/index.php but I couldn't find the info I was looking for.

Triple post. Sorry.

I just read over your posts again and I didn't address (which is pretty much all I should have addressed) your point about great range = great actor.

This is where things great real subjective. Does Natalie Portman have great range? Good not great, but give it time, she's like what... 28?

I don't even know if Linney even has great range. I'll have to dwell on that. She's still a fantastic actor.

I'll have to dwell on great modern actors and get back to you. Tom Hanks definitley has range that not deniable but whether its great is really subjective.

I actually don't think Pacino has great range, but it's also not deniable that he's a great actor.

To use your example:

To me, what makes a great actor is someone who is able to stretch yourself from your usual role.  DeNiro can play a psycho in Taxidriver, a young Vito Corleone in Godfather II, Jake Lamotta in Raging Bull, and even be funny as hell in Midnight Run.

I could say Brad Pitt has great range. Don't laugh yet. He's done pychotic, method and funny. Obviously not as well as De Niro but still a similar range? That does not put him in the same league as De Niro.

I just wanted to add that you probably realise already but I extremely dislike blockbusters and typical Hollywood. That does not mean I dislike all Hollywood film and its actors.

I generally stay away from the glut of crap and in turn usually have a enjoyable movie watching experience. As a recent example I was regretfully lured in by others to see Transformers (hey I'm a child of the 80's), I will not be seeing it's sequel.

In response to your edit:

edit: I will say that 3 great actors of this generation that do get cast in Blockbusters are Tom Hanks, Russell Crowe, and Denzel Washington, so I don't want to come off as someone who hates all movies today:)

That's funny I was just talking about Hanks the other day. The topic of discussion was who hates Tom Hanks? I think it's impossible. Denzel is a no brainer, although he's getting into a familiar pattern lately. And Crowe well I used to like him when he was small time in Australia, then I hated him, now i'm starting to come back around. Although regardless public opinion is against me in regards to Crowe.

I just wanted to point that out just as public opinion is against you with Clooney. Oh I only tease.

edit: urgh sorry for the wall of text. I'll understand if you don't read it. It looks horrible and I probably wouldn't read it all if someone else wrote it.

Well I see you and I will agree on some things in regards to Hollywood.

Laura Linney is a phenomenal actress, one of the best of her generation. Would I cast her in a blockbuster - yes. Would Hollywood - yes. She's in some pretty mainstream movies. Why she's not in more is probably up to her. She does a lot of indie movies because they seem to be the good female roles. Basically between her and Streep they get the pick of the lot. She doesn't seem to want the notoriety so why do a big movie when you can do a good movie.

It's not always Hollywood that doesn't want the actor it's the actor that doesn't want Hollywood. I's dare say there's a lot of these so called 'good looking' actresses that would be down right envious of Linney's career and the roles she gets.

Before I get onto your supposed vendetta against George Clooney, may I say this first:

You say blockbuster like it's a good thing.

My point is that the blockbusters today are dominated by 'mimbo's'

To that I say: so what. I don't want Seymour Hoffman and Norton in blockbusters. Why? Because it usually will be a crap movie where they won't get a chance to perform.

An example: Norton and Hulk.

The studio wanted Norton for the Ang Lee Hulk and he said no. Which exemplifies my point that Hollywood in certain circumstances want the 'artsy' actor but that actor doesn't want the role. If Norton did Hulk maybe we as an audience wouldn't have got The 25th Hour (I don't know if they were filming at the exact same time I'm just using it as an example or hypothetical)

It's like choosing fast food over a fine meal. You won't eat the fast food unless there is nothing else around. If you can mostly always choose the fine food, most people certainly would.

Unfortunately Hollywood makes an excess of films. There's only so many good actors around/ available. That's when you start filling the roles with less talented people. If you are going to fill a role with a less talented person that isn't going to impress the audience with their performance well they better be damn pretty to impress them instead. Fortunately or unfortunately there are more pretty people in the world than talented people. And that's Hollywood for you.

And then there's your exceptions like Superman with Brando and Hackman. It's better than the average blockbuster because it doesn't want to just be a blockbuster it wants be a good film and that in turn attracts the right actors. The same with Batman Begins and now The Dark Knight. It wanted to be more than your typical Batman Returns type blockbuster movie and just be a good film, a more cerebral blockbuster and that in turn attracts the talent.

Again I could go on and on but I'm getting lost in my own thoughts as it is. Am I still coherent?

On to Clooney.

Jaws is a bad example because it's such a classic that no one wants to even think about alternate casting and if it was made today. The actors in their roles are such perfection that you can't imagine anyone else.

But to use your example, would it be so bad if Clooney was in such a movie? Do you actual have a vendetta against him?

In case you can't tell I actually like him. But now if you suggested someone like Matthew McConaughey my answer would be different (though he's actually a decent comedic actor he just makes usually terrible movies.)

Clooney actually played a similar role in the Perfect Storm, was he so bad? Ok the movie was.

I also think you are paying too much attention to the Oscars. History deems Paul Newman to be a revered actor not how many Oscars he won. I could think of a dozen examples in as many seconds of actors that have failed to have been recognised by the Academy. There's even as many examples of actors that were awarded Oscars and did not deserve it.

Does Clooney fall into the latter category? You apparently think so, I do not.

Did you see Syrianna? I thought Clooney was very good in the role. I don't think it was his best work (close) nor do I think it was the best supporting role ever to win an Oscar (that would just be silly). But in the year deemed by the Academy as 2005 it was the best supporting role. Clooney's competition was Matt Dillon for Crash, Paul Giamatti for Cinderella Man, Jake Gyllenhaal for Brokeback Mountain and William Hurt for A History of Violence.

So I propose who do you think should have won it? Sometimes the Academy Awards is all about giving the award to someone who is the best at that particular time (sometimes the nominees are filler) and sometimes the Academy gives the award for a body of work (ie Scorsese or Denzel Washington). In the case of Clooney's Oscar it could have been both.

Do I think Clooney = DeNiro? No.

You make a fair point about Harrison and Eastwood. But sometimes they can be truly astonishing in that field, ie Eastwood in Unforgiven.

It would be stupid not to say looks are important in Hollywood, it's a visual medium and looks have always been important. Hell looks are of increasing importance in the real world and even as important in the music industry as it is in Hollywood when it should be about the sound created not the image created.

Oh and on last bit of defence for Clooney he won his Oscar for best supporting actor and Newman won his for Best Actor. Also to tie everything together why did Clooney win his for his least attractive role instead of say Good Night and Good Luck or Michael Clayton? Plain talent maybe :)

Oh I'm going to get drilled for my defence of Clooney. But I'll still stand by defence of people like him and Pitt (who I don't think is Oscar calibre yet - I'll wait for Benjamin Button) and Robert Redford. Same scenario different era.

@ Sunday - actually Hayden was cast in and made Life as a House after he was cast in and shot principal photography on Episode 2. It's just that because of the usual long post production time on a movie like AOTC that Life as a House was filmed and released before it. 

@ Chewy - Portman is a fine actress. Yes she is terrible in the prequels. But so is Ewan McGregor at times, is he an overrated actor? Probably not. She has to be given a pass on Ep 1 since she was 16 freakin' years old and the other 2 movies she just looked bored as hell. I think the behind the secens footage of the pick up shooting for Ep 2 when she had to film the factory sequence is very telling.

If you don't see range in her from role to role you probably haven't seen enough of her work. She isn't Meryl Streep but she's one of the better actresses amongst her peers.

I also have to protest your point on hollywood now being dominated by only good looking actors. It's was the same back then as it is now.

Do you actually think George Clooney and Brad Pitt are bad actors? Cause if you do your opinion won't hold much water with me. Good looks does not equal no talent. What about Robert Redford or Cary Grant or Warren Beatty to use older hollywood examples.

Present day I can list for example hollywood actors such as Phillip Seymor Hoffman and Edward Norton next to the likes of Deniro, Pacino and Hackman without a hesitating. Then there is an actor like Chrisitan Bale who has both leading man good looks and immense acting talent.

I could go on and on about your Kevin Spacey's and your pretty boys turned good like Leonardo DiCaprio (who was always a good actor mind you) but I better stop some where, but there is definately no shotage of talent in hollywood. You dominate hollywood if you're a good. 

This is all subjective of course, which is why I didn't say you are wrong I just disagree completely.

I pretty much disregard them/ pretend they don't exist.

If it wasn't for the occasional blog writer/ internet poster/ comedian / Robot Chicken / Family Guy making fun of them every now and then I'd have almost successfully forgotten them.

When I watch SW and I hear Luke or Obi Wan talking about Luke's father/ Anakin Skywalker in the OOT I don't even think of Hayden Anakin except on the odd occasion. Even in 2005 when the movies were fresh in my mind my brain couldn't make the connection.

When watching SW and I think of the era before the dark times, before the Empire I actually think of the vague imagery I used think about pre late 90's (made up in my head of course).

But it hasn't been all that easy. It just means I have to cut everything out of my SW life that isn't the OOT. Which isn't a huge loss. I'm actually pretty content, things are just far more simple.

Remember after Ep 1 and before Ep 2 when Lucas said that Ep 2 was going to be a depature from the SW series and was going to be a romance story and light on the action? I actually would of prefered that and found it refreshing in hindsight after the ****ing tripe that was actually unleashed on the public.

Fang Zei said:

This is kind of random, but I thought this as good a thread as any to post it in:

Over at AICN, Harry Knowles mentions in his story about the 20 minutes or so of Star Trek footage that was recently screened to the press that David Fincher was rumored to be directing one of the PT movies back in the day. Is this true?

I just find it kind of an odd coincidence considering he would've been in my top three (one for each movie) of directors for the PT. Him, Johnston and Darabont, all ILM/Lucasfilm alums.

Rumoured? Yes probably. But that could mean anything. I'd say there is no truth in it.

Not really the sort of films he likes to make.

Though he did work for ILM and even lived on the same street as Lucas as a kid but so did Michael Bay - worked for ILM that is. *shudder*

Didn't Lucas originally imagine lightsabers or more importantly the weapon that a Jedi wields as requiring an immense amount of focus to use as they were supposedly made of a dense energy.  Hence Jedi were the only ones who could weild them and why they often used a two handed grip, because they were heavy, and they'd use short precise strikes as not to waste energy fighting.

I don't even know if that make any sense (a dense energy?) but my memory of this is fuzzy. If anyone knows what the hell I'm talking about please add some input.

I've found it and downloaded it, will watch soon.

edit: Oh that was good.

Dr Ball MD: "Good God man! I'm a doctor not a savage!"

and....

"Well, I guess I'll have the insensitive bitch with a side of fuck you!"

Oh and Bossk's good manners. All had me rolling with laughter.

And none of those lines are spoliers because you really need to see them in context.

So it was on last night?

I thought it was supposed to be but I thought it would be all over the interwebs by now and I've seen nothing. Yes I'm a non-American so I couldn't watch this live.

I was looking forward to this. It's not like its an obscure program.

SilverWook said:

It was practically a love letter to all the things we've nitpicked about all these years! :)

This statement just makes me want to watch it even more.

http://www.starwars.com/movies/saga/20081117a.html

Hmm this is worth mentioning.

I still have not seen the HS and I never will. There's only so much pain one can endure.

disclaimer: I was linked to the article from another site. I still hate the official site.

What movie did Star Wars surpass in 1997 to become the highest-grossing film of all time?

I'm guessing E.T

Titanic wasn't released yet.

I'm pretty sure Coppola mentions all that in the Godfather dvd commentaries, specifically Part 2. I've never listened to Part 3 as I don't own it, yet.

But you do make a good point. And when I heard it on the commentary I found it very refreshing to hear such honesty.