zombie84

Maybe. To be fair it's been 10 years since I've seen 90% of the Bond films. NSNA I saw recently.

SpilkaBilka said:

Very interesting.  I learn something new every day on this site.

I don't mean to derail this thread, but I have a quick question and didn't think starting a new thread was worth it.  Is it true that different theatrical releases of ESB had slightly different endings?  Something about a missing FX shot of the rebel fleet or something?  Is there a thread or pics of this somewhere on OT.com?  Couldn't find anything.

There is a thread, I think about the 70mm ESB.

But I'll save you the homework. From what I understand, the second establishing shot of the Rebel fleet was added at the last second. The 70mm was prepared first, which is why the sound mix is a tiny bit different too, and this shot is absent on that release. The 35mm had the completed sound mix and the missing shot. Or am I wrong on that? The Puggo 8mm release has some of these differences, since it is based off the incomplete 70mm edit (also things like the Emperor hologram not fading in).

Tyrphanax said:

Never Say Never Again. Oh yes. Connery's final goodbye to Bond. He's old. The times have changed (compared to Thunderball) it all feels very out-of-place, but it's still pretty well Bond. Personally, I prefer Tunderball to Never Say Never Again; it's a cooler film, though we do get some neat video game action with Never Say Never Again, I just can't warm up to its take on Largo who just comes off as "meh" and psychotic compared to Thunderball's more suave and controlled take. SPECTRE isn't as interesting, either, though their bomb plot is slightly more grand than just blowing up Florida or whatever (though the plan to steal it is far more outlandish and silly), and I preferred hiding Blofeld's face and making him more mysterious; from my point of view, he started to get more and more lame as we saw more and more of him. Fatima Blush is an interesting henchwoman, and we'll see her type at least once more later on in a more official film. Domino is just kind of there and doesn't feel as human as Thunderball's version. It's still a good film, though I do wish the had been able to swing the Roger Moore cameo for the ending.

 

I have  feeling I am maybe just an Irvin Kershner fanboy, but I feel like this is one of the better Bond films ever made. Yeah. I'm not a huge Bond fan, so take that as you will. But this film is, in my opinion, every bit as clever and witty as the Connery classics, except it has the better taste to not take itself too seriously and have fun with the idea of an older Bond. Sean Connery looks like he is enjoying himself, at least. Not the best film ever made or anything, but when I watch this film I feel like the people making it were having fun. It has a bad rep with some people, but compared to shit like Moonraker this looks like genius. It has a certain silliness that reminds me of some of the better Roger Moore entries.

My question is...HOW DO YOU PEOPLE NOTICE A SINGLE FRAME MISSING?

Good find though. Another useless bit of trivia I can now add to my knowledge of Star Wars, along with the stunning revelation in the OT Purist thread that there were, in fact, not one but three Prune Face people in ROTJ.

The negative probably got torn. If that happens you can do two things: glue it back together if it is a minor tear, or cut out the frame entirely if it a major one, otherwise it will jam up and tear the whole reel. It's not abnormal to cut out a damaged frame.

I always thought vs Kong was one of the best of the sequels. When I was a kid it held a special place with my friends who watched the films with me. I would say it's as good as vs Gigan and vs Ghidorah, and I would consider those among the better films (Gigan uses lots of stock footage, but I consider that more like a 'best of' sort of episode).

Good track...but then Episode I had Duel of the Fates.... Heck it even had it's own music video. It was the first and to this day only time I had turned on MTV and seen guys using trumpets and violins and no guitars, synths or drums in a music video. Yeah...it had an MTV music video that was voted pretty high up there IIRC.

Wasn't Rick Berman in charge of TNG just when it began to get good? Or am I one of the few people who think the best thing to happen to that series was Roddenberry passing away, god bless his soul?

Anyway, yeah, McCallum gets too much shit. He was just doing his job. And he did a great job! He wasn't meant to be there creatively, he was more like a production manager, and the amount of management he had to juggle was mind-boggling, and each film came slightly under budget and schedule. Hell, he made Episode II without a script! Can you imagine the logistics? On top of which, he subtly prodded Lucas into more useful directions, like bringing in a dialogue coach in Episode III. The fact is, Lucas was the boss, and he wanted someone to carry out his wishes. McCallum knew this, and had he resisted significantly Lucas would have fired him and found someone capable of that. Howard Kazanjian doesn't get shit, but he did the exact same thing. Why? Because that's how it goes. Anyone who hasn't had to do their incompetant boss' bidding hasn't spent enough time in the work force.  Some producers want to be in on the creative side, and some enjoy being managers and taking a backseat. Arguably, the prequels needed that guy, but Lucas was the one in charge and he wasn't going to let that happen.

On top of which, McCallum started out with a bang with Young Indy, not to mention Singing Detective. Great series. "Want to do the prequels?" Hell yes, where do I sign. I think he acted in good faith, George Lucas was a god and these were thought to be the biggest films of the century, but after Episode I he realized, "oh, damn, all those doubts I had during production were true. Oh, well. I'm under contract now. What's the point of quitting?" No one goes after the producer of The Green Lantern. "WHY DIDN'T YOU MAKE SURE THE FILM WAS GOOD??? ARGHHH!" But Gary Kurtz sets an unrealistic precedent. And look what happened to him? He was fired, and after one more film that was the end of his career. If McCallum had any incling to be a creative head he would have got into directing. He was interested in management, and to that end he did a fantastic job.

I wish him well. And I hope he winds up on better films. He deserves it.

Haha, I think I might remember that!

That would be Godzilla King of the Monsters, 1956. :p

Princess Bride - What can I say, this movie is incredible. In a way, it really is a bit like the original Star Wars: a clever and funny tribute to old-fashioned adventure stories that doesn't take itself too seriously but doesn't wink at the camera much either. As a kid, it worked on face value, as an adult, you get that second pastiche layer. "My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."

Dawn of the Dead 2004 - I remember walking into this in 2004 preparing to hate it but was surprised and impressed to find a decent film. While the original is still a classic, this is a watchable and sometimes very entertaining remake. I hadn't seen it since around 2006 and forgot how good it was in places. It's of course very flawed as well, but of all the mainstream zombie movies to come about in the last ten years this is one of the better ones.

Life in a Day - an interesting idea. Sometimes it feels like it is trying too hard to be profound with it's contrast of "life and death" (cattle at a slaughterhouse, babies at a hospital), but it would be a bit hard to avoid that in a concept like this. Worth watching for the novelty. Not great but I enjoyed it.

Fox had nothing to do with ROTJ they were only a distributor. Lucas put up the money himself, with a $35 million budget. Any decisions based on cost were his decisions, as Fox was not involved in the production itself.

You may be confusing this with the original film. Lucas had to constantly ask for more money. The film was initially budget for $7 or $9 million, or something like that, and I think it came in around $11 or $13 million. Lucas also asked for more money for reshoots, but didn't get quite the amount he asked for. I think Fox was pretty generous though, as it was one of the most expensive pictures released in 1977.

You are right. They haven't used the same lights, and lenses.

But if they did, you would be fooled. They don't so, it looks similar--but not the same. This is not a limit of digital optics. This is a practical limit of how far people are going to go to faithful recapture that. And the answer is: not far enough. But if they wanted to, they could.

Also: yes, that sucks that "star wars" might be thought of a "flat" or "blurry". But does it not bother you that Nosferatu and Sunrise are thought of as "silent" and "black and white"? If not, then it should. Otherwise you are calling the kettle black. Change sometimes is a bitch. But hey, fucking Star Wars is now called A New Hope, so we should be well adjusted to that.

Well, I added this bit before you responded:

"It's a false analogy to compare oil paints to photography. Movies are photography, it's the exact same device and quality between your 1980s photos of the family vacation and a Hollywood movie at the time. But no film, anywhere has looked like an oil painting. Even Waking Life. Let's compare apples to apples. It's like saying, does Fincher's Girl with the Dragon Tattoo look like the original swedish version of the film? Because that was shot on 35mm film. There are stylistic decisions. But it would be idiotic to say the Swedish version looks like an oil painting and Fincher's looks like a digital still. Quite the opposite--I would say Fincher's was more painterly and beautiful. These are the types of emotional-based arguments that don't make much sense and only serve to underline the point I am making. Digital looks like film if you want it to, but increasingly people have been making the choice to abandon that option and instead make it look more realistic--and also just as beautiful."

And no. Sorry. Raiders could be shot 90% the same looking with a digital camera today--if they wanted to. But people don't. You could achieve the same effect. It's not the technology--it's a matter of taste. Crystal Skull was shot on 35mm film and look how that looked! That alone proves the matter overstated.

1990osu said:

zombie84 said:

The reason being, once photography came around there was no point.

*sigh* [(TM) warbler]

zombie84 said:

Why spend a month's paycheque when you can get a photo or a litho for a fraction of the price?

Because the painting is objectively better?  Because it has texture and it looks differently depending on the lighting in the room because different light reflects off of the texture in different ways- you don't just get one sterile, perfect experience that is standardized for everyone.  Just like movies on film-every showing is a unique event that requires people in the audience, a skilled projectionist, etc. If there's considered no difference between paintings and photos, why go to an art gallery at all?  If there's considered no difference between viewing film and watching the digital movie on your cell phone, why go to the movies at all?  Isn't this a massive mistake?

Digital cell-phone? Sure. But the difference between a high end digital motion picture camera and a 35mm motion picture camera is practically non-existant. Usually if there is a difference, it's a deliberate one--digital could look the same as film, and often does, but when it doesn't it's because they don't care to replicate that look exactly. High-end digital looks truer to real life in 2012, and while in the past we resisted that because it looked "different" than film, now that we are used to it, it is being used more openly.

It's a false analogy to compare oil paints to photography. Movies are photography, it's the exact same device and quality between your 1980s photos of the family vacation and a Hollywood movie at the time. But no film, anywhere has looked like an oil painting. Even Waking Life. Let's compare apples to apples. It's like saying, does Fincher's Girl with the Dragon Tattoo look like the original swedish version of the film? Because that was shot on 35mm film. There are stylistic decisions. But it would be idiotic to say the Swedish version looks like an oil painting and Fincher's looks like a digital still. Quite the opposite--I would say Fincher's was more painterly and beautiful. These are the types of emotional-based arguments that don't make much sense and only serve to underline the point I am making. Digital looks like film if you want it to, but increasingly people have been making the choice to abandon that option and instead make it look more realistic--and also just as beautiful.

It's not going away, forever. It just will no longer be the standard. Eventually.

I love film. I was a cameraman in the International Cinematographer's Guild. I'm also very young--I was always "the kid" on set--and I made a name for myself as a film guy. Not a video guy, but a young guy who knew about film. When I was working it was the turnover between film and digital and I hated video, because it wasn't ready. It is now, so my opinion has changed. But I still love, love film. I have a whole box full of 16mm and 35mm raw stock short-ends that I was saving for my own projects that have now become expired, but I never had the heart to throw them out. And I love black and white. I worked as a lighting cameraman, and I saw thing in light and shadow, not colour, and would light that way. That's why I love a lot of films from the 1920s like Sunrise. That's also why I hoarded a lot of Kodak b&w film when they were phasing it out. I still buy issues of Black and White Photography, but many of the examples aren't on film--and it doesn't matter. That both pains and joys me. Digital photography today is essentially indistinguishable. So what are we mourning? Our emotional attachment. And no one was more attached to that than me. I still have reels of undeveloped black and white 35mm motion picture 400 foot spools that will never be used, because I am old fashioned.

But I also recognize that being old fashioned is not an excuse to get in the way of improving the medium. 35mm photography may remain a niche hobby for the time being, but it's purely an emotional thing, and therefore to me "highly illogical." If there is no distinguishable difference between the digital equivalent, then what are we holding on to? It was kind of a sad day when I realized that--but it was also so overwhelming exciting, that for a fraction of the cost anyone could anywhere do the same thing that was concentrated in the hands of a few elite--that I couldn't help but tell film to fuck right off and not to look back, emotional as it was. It still has its uses--archival, for example, since digital storage is still rocky--but in terms of pure photography? No. Sorry. Film is a dinosaur. And I never, ever thought I'd be saying that in the year 2012. 2020, maybe. But things have progressed so fast that really, it has increasingly little use, unless you have unlimited millions of dollars to throw at it--and even then, maybe not.

1990osu said:

^^Here's a good analogy: Why do a painting when you can just take the same picture with an HD camera?

This is a great point. Photography killed the painting industry. It still survives, but instead of owning the entire visual medium, now it is only one part--an expensive, specialty part. Have you ever bought a painting from an artist? Not a lithograph--that's just a reproduction, and applies equally to film, or illustration or painting. You could buy a $1200 painting--or buy a $200 litho. Almost everyone alive does not own any orginal paintings. If they own anything it is a lithograph--a photograph of a painting. The reason being, once photography came around there was no point. Why spend a month's paycheque when you can get a photo or a litho for a fraction of the price? So it became a speciality collectors thing that almost no one today truely supports.

DominicCobb said:

Yes, very interesting post zombie. I've never thought of it before, but that does make sense, now that I think about it. 

So, yeah, if I decide that I still prefer 24 fps, I'll own up to it and say that it's because I'm used to it. 

There's really only one argument that I can pose as to why less realistic might be better. If you were to watch a movie, shown at a very high framerate, and in 3D, I would assume that it would almost look like it was right there, like it wasn't actually a picture. While I think it's cool that an effect like that could be achieved, that's not always what I want when I'm watching a film. When I watch a film, I'm watching a story. It's not real. Movies aren't real, they're make believe. So, to me, watching a film at 24 fps kind of keeps that storytelling aspect in check. I'm trying to think of a good analogy, but I can't really at the moment. I hope you understand my meaning anyway.

You would probably object to 14 FPS, silent black and white films being made all the time though. I mean, if it suited the film sure. But what kind of story is suited to that? It's hard to pin down. When you dream, it's in colour, has depth and runs at over-24fps, just like real life. It also has more resolution than 16mm.

This is another thing. Why was 35mm chosen as the standard? You guessed it. Money. If there was no money involved, everyone would be shooting at 65mm. But they aren't, 35mm became the standard for the same reason 24FPS became the standard--it was realistic enough, but also cheap enough. If you wanted to get cheap you could film in 16mm, but until the indie scene this was not an option, and that 16mm indie scene only last 25 years anyway before digital options surpassed it.

We all want a heightened realism in our movies. But the standards we have--whether sound, picture resolution, frame rate, or anything else--film sets aren't realistic, but we accept them as cost solutions--are always a trade off between cost and effect. With CG, we have gotten rid of a lot of the physical set limitations. We can also create sound that isn't there. We added colour to black and white emulsions. And now we are finally achieving that extra depth--three dimensions and real life motion. Movies will still be larger than life and unrealistic, they will just be more believable, more inherantly acceptable. Unless you want to make a statement--like The Artist did.

Why shoot colour, when you can shoot black and white?

But no one does this. I love black and white, and hoarded a lot of Kodak's 35mm bw stock when they were getting rid of it. Films like The Man Who Wasn't There show that you can shoot good black and white films today.

They just aren't realistic. They are self-consciously stylized. And they aren't popular.

I feel like that is how "flat" films (non 3D) or "blurry" films (24fps) will be seen in the future. Much like we have "silent" films. Isn't that label judgemental? Why call them silent, when we should really be calling all the rest "talkies", since those came second? But that's the way the progression goes.

I agree that the new victory celebration works best in the 6 episode saga.

But it's also important to remember films are what they are. In 1983, if you put that music in the film it would have been out of place. The films' context have changed over time, and that's important to understand.

The moment when this hit me was around...I dunno, 2004? The prequels weren't complete and I kept hoping somehow they would all tie together. But in the end, they didn't. So I said, fuck this shit, the films didn't need fixing in the first place. I was fine with them the way they were before 1997. That doesn't mean I hate the prequels or even the Special Edition--they have their strengths. But in the end, when all was said and done, even though I really liked Episode III it wasn't worth it. If both versions were available it would be different, but since Lucas stupidly forced people to take sides and split the fanbase I sided with the films I fell in love with, and not the films I simply accepted because that's all tha was offered. In some ways, the SE has kind of clarified the genius of the original versions and highlighted why the SEs and prequels fail so, so hard in comparison. I am weirdly grateful for that.

Well the thing to remember is, why do you think 24 FPS was chosen as a standard? No, really, this seems like a stupid thing to even ask, but if you know movie history it may make things I say a bit clearer.

Back in the early 1900s, there was no standards for movies. It was a new, experimental technology, and people were branching out and doing all kinds of weird things with it, many of which never survived or caught on. One of the bigger thing was frame rate. There was no standard for frame rate. Most early films shot in something like 18 or 20 FPS. At the time, when you projected it, the motion wasn't totally smooth, it was slightly staccato. But now the standard is 24 FPS, so those old 16 and 18 FPS films are played back at 24 FPS. This gives the sometimes comical effect of fast-motion. That's the reason many old films look sped up.

Why choose a frame rate that, when projected natively looks jerky, or when projected back at the current standard of 24 FPS looks fast? Money. Film is very, very, very expensive. Five minutes of film costs about $1000 for raw stock, and another $1000 to develop and transfer--in today's dollars. At least it did when I worked with 35mm some brief years ago. They could have filmed in 24 FPS, instead of 12, 16, 18 or 20 FPS. They could have also easily filmed in 48 FPS--and they did. But it was so expensive, if you made a feature film that way the costs would skyrocket. They chose an under-24FPS rate at first because it was cheap. It was affordable. So what, it looks a bit jerky, people will be wowed anyway and this is a good compromise. Around the 1920s, as the medium matured and a whole industry sprouted, they had to decide on standards. So, what was the standard frame rate? They chose 24 frames per second. NOT AT ALL because it was ideal, or realistic. They chose that rate because it was the best compromise between affordability, and realism. It wasn't all that realistic, but it was halfway there, and it was a fraction of the cost of filming in something like 60 FPS, which most of the nice looking video games of today run at.

So, from day one it was an arbitrary figure based on financial compromise. But, since we are raised from birth exposed to this on a daily basis it seems "natural" to us. It isn't. There is nothing "natural" or "right" about it, it's an arbitrary decision, but we are just used to it. 30 FPS looks ugly, because it's too little an improvement. 48FPS might just be enough of a difference to cause a shift in perception. I would prefer Dougie's 128 FPS standard, since we aren't printing film anymore, but at least 48 FPS is a doubling of what we have now, and just enough in the "realism" zone to qualify. 24 FPS looks "nice," but that's subjective, it's mainly because we have been raised from birth to look at that, but the history behind that standard is really due to financial issues.

They show a shot of him right before the DS explodes. In movie grammar, this is indicating that he is onboard the DS a second before it blows up. The film was not structured like that originally, but the editors decided to intercut Tarkin to increase the threat and remind the viewers why the DS is being attacked, and also give bigger emotional payoff when it drives home that the main villain in charge just got destroyed.

It was very much intentional, and that's all there is to it. "Stand by, stand by", shot of X-wings flying away, shot of Tarkin ONBOARD THE DEATH STAR, cut to massive explosion as all perish. They added that shot just to remind people--hey, Tarkin didn't evacuate, he is still onboard counting on the Death Star firing first, and they almost do but then BOOM.

End of story.

Well, weren't you the one discounting the EU in another thread or this? The EU can make up whatever it wants. It's like if you got a job writing a comic, you could put something like that in there. It's cool that those writers have that interpretation of the film. But it's just an interpretation. It doesn't make it so when we are discussing the films. In the films, the only enlisted service ever spoken of is voluntary, and we never see, nor are given reason to believe, there are women and children on board. What purpose would that serve anyway? Another reason I gave up on the EU 12 years ago.

I saw him in Life As a House, and he was pretty good. Sadly, everything else I've seen him in hasn't been good, and now I don't even see him in anything anymore. I feel like he had talent but either lost it or made really bad casting choices. I mean, if you only saw the films Harrison Ford made after Air Force One, you might he is a shit actor too. Or, maybe Hayden just got lucky early on. Too bad, I always felt sorry for him a little bit because I used to know him when we were teenagers...

Yeah, and even though you might expect people to be conscripted for the Empire, and therefore more or less innocent, the only information given in the films is voluntary service. Luke wants to join the Imperial Academy (to jump ship for the Rebellion, as we learn in the deleted Biggs scenes), but his Uncle says no way. So, it was a choice Luke made on his own, and in the end he didn't even end up joining because his guardian forbid him. That makes the Death Star personell fair game. They were serving as the command crew in what is ultimately a habitable weapon of mass destruction. Mass destruction doesn't even begin to describe the level of weapon they were crew members of. It's essentially like bombing a tank and killing the tank crew inside, only the tank that the Empire built required the manpower of a whole space station. But nonetheless, the world's biggest tank it was.