logo Sign In

theredbaron

User Group
Members
Join date
29-Aug-2005
Last activity
6-Jan-2016
Posts
1,283

Post History

Post
#237771
Topic
Tell imdb.com to separate their rating system for theatrical and altered versions of movies.
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/237771/action/topic#237771
Time
Originally posted by: BadAssKeith
Steven Spielberg or George Lucas?

Spielberg! 8424 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------(68.5%)

I like them both equally! 1810 -------(14.7%)

Lucas! 1254 ---(10.2%)

OOOOOOUUUCH!!!!!!!

LETS MAIL THIS STATISTIC TO GEORGE LUCAS AND PISS HIM OFF!!!!!


Yeah, that'll REALLY help...
Post
#237763
Topic
Where did the huge influx of retards come from?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/237763/action/topic#237763
Time
It's funny how retarded even this thread is becoming. none, your last statement was pretty much uncalled for and definitely sick. sean wookie, your behaviour with regards to Pro-Ana boards is pretty strange too - especially coming on here afterwards and skiting about it...

And Jay, my man, is that really you? I'm having a hard time believing some of your posts lately - to me, you've always been the grounded one with his head screwed on properly, no matter how dire the situation...
Post
#237581
Topic
General Batman Talk
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/237581/action/topic#237581
Time
Originally posted by: Lord Phillock
He was probably thinking something along the lines of Batman Beyond or something.


what do you mean? I was just stating that having the "Batman" name before "The Dark Knight" hence "Batman: The Dark Knight"
would have a compatibility to the previous "Batman Begins"... is that so hard to understand?

because the two official titles are both on the extreme on either side... really cheesy (Batman Begins) and really serious (The Dark Knight)...
I'm just saying the two titles differ way too much... and should have at least some resemblance.


Which is why I said that you'd prefer something *like* Batman Beyond - which isn't exactly serious-sounding, and has the alliteration of its predecessor, and for my money, isn't that bad a title for something I just pulled out of my ass...it was just an example man, no need to get your knickers in a knot.
Post
#237579
Topic
Where did the huge influx of retards come from?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/237579/action/topic#237579
Time
Originally posted by: sean wookie
Originally posted by: SKot
Originally posted by: sean wookie
Am I one of the retards?
You know what they say: if you have to ask...

Just kidding. I don't think you were being referred to.

Although your second .sig image does cause the eyebrow to raise a bit...

--SKot


I admit I'm a 4channer and I do quite a bit of fourm raiding but thats only like to racist fourms and fourms that encourage anorexia.


No way in the world you're considered to be one of the retards. If anything, this has been a recent development that I've picked up on and you've been here for ages. But you do have some self-esteem issues man - you're fine, stop worrying about how you're being received all the time and simply be.
Post
#237429
Topic
My sig link was blocked to this site
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/237429/action/topic#237429
Time
Originally posted by: Padawan Epstein
Ha,

Yes I did in my post above, sorry - sloppy typing. But the sig link WAS accurate (I edited my original message above to aviod confusion, again, oops).

The link worked for awhile and I checked it about a week ago and got the "address does not exist" message.

I input the address a couple of times getting the same result, even going as far as visiting the homepage, and copying and pasting the address, in case I was making some sort of mistake.

Anyone is welcome to try it if you don't believe me...


Don't worry man, I was just being a smartass.
Post
#237422
Topic
DVD WRITING CAMPAIGN - WEEK ONE - "Entertainment Weekly"
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/237422/action/topic#237422
Time
Originally posted by: darkhelmet
Originally posted by: theredbaron
...without it sounding like a rabid, emotive piece of propaganda.

Oh. Did I sound rabid?


I wasn't taking a stab at anyone, much less you, so as far as I know, no you don't sound rabid. All I'm saying is that when appealing to people, try not to resort to overly emotive language to win them over. It can undermine the logic in your argument.
Post
#237409
Topic
Where did the huge influx of retards come from?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/237409/action/topic#237409
Time
It seems that the "Off Topic" section has become the bastion of the Old Guard on this site (pretty sad that I should have to use that term), which brings me to my title question: where did the huge influx of retards on the General Star Wars Discussion forum come from?

The biggest troublemakers I've seen thus far have been BadAssKeith and JediRandy, among other asshats who simply reply with JPEGs insulting their threads and comments.
Post
#237404
Topic
How George Lucas created the O-OT fanbase...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/237404/action/topic#237404
Time
Originally posted by: Mr Bungle
I dont think we will ever see it again in all honesty, I think they pretty much drew the line with this release, and I just cant see uncle George getting his wallet out to spend the bucks bringing it upto standards for any type of proper release seeing as he isnt keen on it anyway. This has been a diaster and this DVD release doesnt look it going to be sell shiploads anyway, so I do think this is the last release,

The hopes for a good OOT IMO lie with the X0 team, and not some future release from Lucasfilm.........


I agree.



LEIA: Help us X-O team, you're our only hope!


OBI-WAN: That '06 release was our last hope...

YODA: No. There is another...
Post
#237403
Topic
It has begun: StarWars.com to celebrate original films
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/237403/action/topic#237403
Time
Originally posted by: Anchorhead
Originally posted by: skye_solo
George Lucas is appearing more and more to be like a Charles Foster Kane.

I've had that discussion with people before. I think you're right.

He's not a director with a lifetime of movies - some vast body of work worthy of an honorary Lifetime Achievement Oscar at the end of his career. He's a guy that made a series of 6 films, amassed billions because of it, and has become some eccentric that rules his empire (a film company as opposed to a publishing company) from his "ranch". The place is even named after one of the characters in the films.

He has people that speak for him and legions of blindly devoted followers that hang on his every word and believe every thing he says, no matter how ridiculous it sounds, how false it's proven to be, or hypocritical it is.

There are already thousands of people that study and discuss ad nauseam what it was he was thinking when he wrote a certain character or a particular scene, or why he would alter something years after the fact and then lie about it.

He's already become a Charles Kane figure.


There are plenty of other character analogies to be drawn, like his very own Darth Vader, or even Howard Hughes (with such one-eyed devotion to his "definitive vision" that he locks himself away from the outside world, collecting his own urine samples - Skywalker Ranch, anyone?).
Post
#237399
Topic
General Batman Talk
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/237399/action/topic#237399
Time
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
How about 'Batman Continues', Batman's Back!!' or 'Batman: The Caped Crusader'?

EDIT: Oh, and can everybody please stop referring to them as the 'Burton/Schumacher' films? Whatver you may think of Burton's movie, they don't deserve to be lumped in with the pieces of shit that followed.


I echo that sentiment, although I am pretty sure that Burton was the producer of Forever. *Pretty sure*, but not definite...
Post
#237381
Topic
DVD WRITING CAMPAIGN - WEEK ONE - "Entertainment Weekly"
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/237381/action/topic#237381
Time
Feel free to use and edit this letter of mine, if you'd like. Posting via snail mail is not really a viable option for me, as I reside in Australia, but I could still use it for emailing purposes if I tailor it correctly...

Dear IMDB.com staff,

I am writing to you concerning the multiple versions of the original Star Wars trilogy: the original theatrical version, the 1997 Special Edition, and the 2004 Special Edition. I believe that the '97 and '04 special editions are sufficiently different to warrant separate ratings to the original theatrical version, if not only to highlight the differences between them. As you are no doubt aware, there are many schools of thought among Star Wars fans, particularly when it comes down to which versions (or indeed, even which trilogy) they prefer. A fan of the original theatrical version may utterly despise the special editions and vice versa, and this can make things difficult with regards to reader ratings and comments on your website (am I scoring this film according to my view of the original version or the special edition?). As it stands now, it is impossible to tell which versions are the preferred ones amongst the viewing public. Indeed, a great portion of the viewing public is largely unaware of the changes that have been made to these films over the past decade; changes that in some instances are merely cosmetic, but in many instances affect the continuity, characterisations, and even meaning of the entire Star Wars story (the "Han Shoots First" debate springs to mind).

Why is this important? This coming September, Lucasfilm and Fox will be re-releasing the original Star Wars trilogy on DVD. The 2004 DVD release was a disappointment to many Star Wars fans across the galaxy, who were expecting a quality DVD transfer of the original theatrical versions, as the title was not designated "Special Edition". This was not the case, and we have since learned that George Lucas now considers the 2004 special editions to be the definitive version, and has been quoted as effectively denying the existence of the original theatrical versions. As you can expect, this has angered many Star Wars fans, who are yet to see their definitive version (and indeed, the original, unaltered version) transferred and restored faithfully to a modern, quality digital format like DVD. Many lesser films have recieved this treatment, while films such as Superman and E.T. have been restored faithfully alongside their special edition brethren within the same DVD sets. But I digress.

The September 2006 DVD set will reportedly consist of the 2004 Special Edition versions, with the original theatrical versions included as bonus material. This is great news for fans of the original versions, but at the same time, this treatment does not give these films their proper due. The original theatrical Star Wars trilogy will be a direct transfer from the 1995 Laserdisc masters (as in, not restored and remastered from the original prints) and will not be presented in anamorphic display - an industry standard for important DVD releases such as this. No doubt this DVD set will again be designated as the Star Wars Trology, with no indication that the special editions will once again be the core of the release, and yet the inclusion of the "original, unaltered trilogy" will be used as its major selling point, if Lucasfilm's press releases are to be believed. After all, what Star Wars fan wouldn't already own the 2004 DVD set?

So on one hand, we have George Lucas dismissing and effectively denying the existence of the original theatrical versions, and on the other, we have Lucasfilm using the original, unaltered trilogy as a major incentive for Star Wars fans to purchase three DVDs which they already own, with the major incentive as "Bonus Material". To add credence to his now "definitive vision", George Lucas has gone on record on a number of occasions to claim that there is no demand for the original theatrical versions of Star Wars, and that the fans only want to see the 2004 special edition versions. This has created a catch-22 situation for many Star Wars fans, who would love to demonstrate the overwhelming demand for the original versions, but are unable to, as the core of the release is still the special edition versions (George Lucas could simply claim that people purchased them for the special editions). On top of that, most of these fans already own the 2004 DVD set, and do not wish to purchase them again *just* to get the original versions as bonus materials from Laserdisc masters. What there *is* demand for, is a separate release of the original theatrical versions of the Star Wars trilogy on DVD, restored and remastered from the original prints, and presented in anamorphic widescreen (basically, given the treatment that any great film deserves and has been given). And so, while fans may be unable to demonstrate this demand with their wallets, it would be great if they could at least do it with a separate star-rating on a website, namely one as widely-read as IMDB.com. If you could accomodate this request, you would be doing both Star Wars fans and consumers a great service.

Thank you very much for your time,

The Red Baron
Post
#237366
Topic
Tell imdb.com to separate their rating system for theatrical and altered versions of movies.
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/237366/action/topic#237366
Time
Here would be my example:

Dear IMDB.com staff,

I am writing to you concerning the multiple versions of the original Star Wars trilogy: the original theatrical version, the 1997 Special Edition, and the 2004 Special Edition. I believe that the '97 and '04 special editions are sufficiently different to warrant separate ratings to the original theatrical version, if not only to highlight the differences between them. As you are no doubt aware, there are many schools of thought among Star Wars fans, particularly when it comes down to which versions (or indeed, even which trilogy) they prefer. A fan of the original theatrical version may utterly despise the special editions and vice versa, and this can make things difficult with regards to reader ratings and comments on your website (am I scoring this film according to my view of the original version or the special edition?). As it stands now, it is impossible to tell which versions are the preferred ones amongst the viewing public. Indeed, a great portion of the viewing public is largely unaware of the changes that have been made to these films over the past decade; changes that in some instances are merely cosmetic, but in many instances affect the continuity, characterisations, and even meaning of the entire Star Wars story (the "Han Shoots First" debate springs to mind).

Why is this important? This coming September, Lucasfilm and Fox will be re-releasing the original Star Wars trilogy on DVD. The 2004 DVD release was a disappointment to many Star Wars fans across the galaxy, who were expecting a quality DVD transfer of the original theatrical versions, as the title was not designated "Special Edition". This was not the case, and we have since learned that George Lucas now considers the 2004 special editions to be the definitive version, and has been quoted as effectively denying the existence of the original theatrical versions. As you can expect, this has angered many Star Wars fans, who are yet to see their definitive version (and indeed, the original, unaltered version) transferred and restored faithfully to a modern, quality digital format like DVD. Many lesser films have recieved this treatment, while films such as Superman and E.T. have been restored faithfully alongside their special edition brethren within the same DVD sets. But I digress.

The September 2006 DVD set will reportedly consist of the 2004 Special Edition versions, with the original theatrical versions included as bonus material. This is great news for fans of the original versions, but at the same time, this treatment does not give these films their proper due. The original theatrical Star Wars trilogy will be a direct transfer from the 1995 Laserdisc masters (as in, not restored and remastered from the original prints) and will not be presented in anamorphic display - an industry standard for important DVD releases such as this. No doubt this DVD set will again be designated as the Star Wars Trology, with no indication that the special editions will once again be the core of the release, and yet the inclusion of the "original, unaltered trilogy" will be used as its major selling point, if Lucasfilm's press releases are to be believed. After all, what Star Wars fan wouldn't already own the 2004 DVD set?

So on one hand, we have George Lucas dismissing and effectively denying the existence of the original theatrical versions, and on the other, we have Lucasfilm using the original, unaltered trilogy as a major incentive for Star Wars fans to purchase three DVDs which they already own, with the major incentive as "Bonus Material". To add credence to his now "definitive vision", George Lucas has gone on record on a number of occasions to claim that there is no demand for the original theatrical versions of Star Wars, and that the fans only want to see the 2004 special edition versions. This has created a catch-22 situation for many Star Wars fans, who would love to demonstrate the overwhelming demand for the original versions, but are unable to, as the core of the release is still the special edition versions (George Lucas could simply claim that people purchased them for the special editions). On top of that, most of these fans already own the 2004 DVD set, and do not wish to purchase them again *just* to get the original versions as bonus materials from Laserdisc masters. What there *is* demand for, is a separate release of the original theatrical versions of the Star Wars trilogy on DVD, restored and remastered from the original prints, and presented in anamorphic widescreen (basically, given the treatment that any great film deserves and has been given). And so, while fans may be unable to demonstrate this demand with their wallets, it would be great if they could at least do it with a separate star-rating on a website, namely one as widely-read as IMDB.com. If you could accomodate this request, you would be doing both Star Wars fans and consumers a great service.

Thank you very much for your time,

The Red Baron
Post
#237353
Topic
Tell imdb.com to separate their rating system for theatrical and altered versions of movies.
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/237353/action/topic#237353
Time
You must avoid using colourful, emotional language when writing to organisations such as this. Phrases like "blood-sucking money-barons" (just an example) will only get your letter/email in the nutjob basket by 3 pointer shot.

If your letter/email comes off sounding like an impassioned Marxist dialectic, its best to pull back, have an ice tea, and start again. If you'll excuse the metaphor, you must rise above the situation in your mental helicopter and observe it from a more objective angle.

If you appeal to their intelligence alone, they may come on side.