logo Sign In

zombie84

User Group
Members
Join date
21-Nov-2005
Last activity
12-Jan-2024
Posts
3,557

Post History

Post
#308456
Topic
(SPOILER) new "STAR TREK" 2009 spoiler thread (SPOILER)
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/308456/action/topic#308456
Time
Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
Totally agree. Sadly, its theatrical version is not available, and I've only seen the Director's Cut, which was supposed to make the movie much better... I honestly didn't see how it could be any worse. Slowest thing ever. But I'd still prefer to see the original version.


God--its so much more tedious. You know all those long, unnecessary, gratuitous shots of the Enterprise that shows off the FX? The DC trimmed about half of it. Personally I thought the DC was pretty decent, but maybe its because I had fallen asleep the only time I watched the original version when I was 10.

Post
#308300
Topic
Is George Lucas a fan of Star Wars?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/308300/action/topic#308300
Time
Originally posted by: C3PX
Imagine if Spielberg had made E.T. and then a sequel to E.T., then another sequel, then a trilogy of E.T. prequels that deal with E.T.'s dad and the birth of E.T. and how E.T. ended up coimg to visit earth and so on, then imagine Spielberg complaining about all these other movies he had wanted to make, yet was forced to do nothing but E.T. all his life. Nope, I can't imagine it either.


LOL, exactly. I think Lucas' "career" is one of the biggest shame's in recent history, simply because it could have been really great. Imagine if after Star Wars he continued to direct other films, maybe Radioland Murders first (and it wouldn't suck the way Willard Huck's did--I can imagine this being like a sort of sequel to Graffiti), and then going on to do all of those weird art films he wanted to do. People would look back and think, "wow, that George Lucas guy made some really original, weird movies, and he also proved he could do a character piece and an action blockbuster"--instead thats a description more appropriate for someone like David Lynch.
Post
#308284
Topic
(SPOILER) new "STAR TREK" 2009 spoiler thread (SPOILER)
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/308284/action/topic#308284
Time
I'm really amped up for this. I think it could be really good; I love the original series but I'm not afraid of them "screwing up the legacy" because no matter how bad it is the ST legacy is already totally fucked. So we can only go up.

The new design is cool. I don't think its feasible to emulate exactly the look of the TOS ship because it would look like a cheap model the way the original design did. I'll admit this design is more on the sleek side than I'd like--I loved that the enterpise was basically a simple nuts-and-bolts submarine in space--but its the best ship design I've seen in the series since Undiscovered Country.

And that trailer kicks serious ass. How funny would it be if Star Trek made an awesome prequel??
Post
#307926
Topic
Is George Lucas a fan of Star Wars?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/307926/action/topic#307926
Time
He was, if you can believe it! He claims that he wasn't enough of a billionaire to make movies without "begging a studio for money". Now that he has a few more billion, apparently he doesn't have to.


...despite the fact that he claims he only intended to do "small, personal" films. Ones that you don't need billions of dollars for anyway. Its a circular argument.

Marcia Lucas:

"By the time George could afford to have a film facility he no longer wanted to direct… After Star Wars, he insisted, ‘I’m never going to direct another establishment-type movie again.’ I used to say, ‘For someone who wants to be an experimental filmmaker, why are you spending this fortune on a facility to make Hollywood movies? We edited THX in our attic, we edited American Graffiti over Francis’ garage, I just don’t get it, George.’ The Lucasfilm empire—the computer division, ILM, the licensing and lawyers—seemed to me to be this inverted triangle sitting on a pea, which was the Star Wars trilogy. But he wasn’t going to make any more Star Wars, and the pea was going to dry up and crumble, and then he was going to be left with this huge facility with its enormous overhead. And why did he want to do that if he wasn’t going to make movies? I still don’t get it.”

Don't worry Marcia, no one else gets it either.
Post
#307840
Topic
Is George Lucas a fan of Star Wars?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/307840/action/topic#307840
Time
If Lucas made movies for Fox he would be able to stipulate Final Cut in his contract. Spielberg gets it, Scorsese gets it, pretty much all the BIG players can dictate terms to the studio because they are the ones making the studios rich, not the other way around. Lucas is full of shit. He just doesn't want to admit that he's only made one "avant garde" un-mainstream film and the rest are all mainstream mass-entertainment pieces so he continues to say "I'm only doing it so I can make these uncommerical films"--without following through in the thirty-five years (!) he's been making these claims, despite being a billionaire before the prequels (when you account net worth).
Post
#307811
Topic
STAR WARS: EP IV 2004 <strong>REVISITED</strong> ADYWAN *<em>1080p HD VERSION NOW IN PRODUCTION</em>
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/307811/action/topic#307811
Time
Originally posted by: Erikstormtrooper


Come to think of it, I really wish we had some kind of PIF rating system, so that we could root out the cheaters.



I REALLY like that idea. Its like what Ebay did with their rating system, otherwise Ebay would never have grown confidence in mass market users. An organised PIF network would be really helpful.
Post
#307030
Topic
Blu-ray Disc or HD-DVD?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/307030/action/topic#307030
Time
Blu-ray regions are slightly different than DVD regions, AFAIK, but I would guess players would region-restrict both DVD and Blu-ray, using each respective region-coding. Its a good question actually, maybe someone knows the actual answer; in any event there are region-free players being made, hopefully these will stick around and not fade away.

As far as that copy-protecting issue, its news to me--where did you read that? So many newspapers and mainstream magazines have such ridiculously inaccurate info, often designed either to sell something with slanted or misinformed opinion or create controversy with slanted and misinformed opinion, that I'm inclined to take it only with a grain of salt for the time being. It would be a silly move anyway, since everyone knows encryption gets cracked eventually.
Post
#307014
Topic
Blade Runner: The Version You've Never Seen Before (Update: Beta Released)
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/307014/action/topic#307014
Time
Originally posted by: Alucard
I think it's unfair to say the Final Cut was disappointing because there wasn't more new footage...

My point is simply that prior to the Final Cut there were 4 versions (incredible to think about it really) of the SAME GREAT movie - with little difference between them IMO. So when we get to cut # 5 its essentialy the same old same old yet again. Now I AM a fan of the movie in all its versions (and have owned every VHS, Laserdisc, DVD and Blu Ray release) but somewhere deep down the cynic in me cries money for old rope. Sorry. The fact that Ridley Scott first prepared a 4 hour version of the movie gets this fan salavating for a taste of what's out there - especially after seeing some of it in the recent documentary and its supplementals - and that's were Fan Edits come in. Studios aren't bothered about releasing such stuff to the public so its left to hardcore fans to sort out. Again just my opinion s'all and it means nothing to nobody but me.


Actually, Warners released perhaps the world's only home video of a workprint cut, barring Alien 3's Assembly Cut., but that was spruced up and altered.

A new version of BR every 15 years is not a big deal, especially considering the history (ie Scott wanted to do the FC in 1992 but Warner wouldn't let him). And its a bargain when you consider the entire film was remastered--a new 4k/8k DI with improved coloring, digital restoration and digital compositing, plus a new state of the art mix. So on top of that you get an improved version of the rough Director's Cut. The way DVD releases go, this is as admirable a re-issue as there ever has been.

Post
#306907
Topic
Blade Runner: The Version You've Never Seen Before (Update: Beta Released)
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/306907/action/topic#306907
Time
Well, as I said in one of my first sentences, I'm not trying to make the film "better". How could I possibly improve on Blade Runner anyway?

I think some people misunderstand the purpose the extended cuts, etc., where exercised material is re-inserted. Sometimes the results are positive (ie the Donner Superman re-constructions, before the proper Donner Cut was released) but often they are inferior to the original form--but thats not really the point. This forum is also for preservations, and the act of re-construction early cuts of films are both educational and historically interesting for true film buffs--they provide an example of what a particular film would have looked and felt like in its earliest form. They give insight into a film's construction, its form, and the creative process which shaped it, and they provide fascinating example of what-could-have-been, not fan-made fantasies (as re-editing to make Roy the hero) but legitimate possibilities that the filmmakers could have taken--and, since most of these edits are made from available sources, the possibilities the filmmakers did pursue at one point but then ultimately abandoned. Fan edits like Shroud of the Darkside and such are interesting as well, but they are of a different nature than the type of "extended edits" we often see, and as this example is. This edit is basically the Assembly Cut of Blade Runner--the earliest possible version with every scene shot and all the early editing choices. Its not 100% that, but thats basically the value.
Post
#306902
Topic
Blu-ray Disc or HD-DVD?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/306902/action/topic#306902
Time
Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
Well, I consider myself a fence sitter, and it's not because I'm stubborn. I'm just not ready to dive into HD formats. I have no HDTV. My DVD collection is still going strong. Don't get me wrong. I'm sure I will eventually. I just really have no desire to at the moment, especially with two formats still out there. It's not likely things will change, but anything could happen.


Since you have no HDTV and have no plans to purchase an HD format, I would not call you a fence-sitter. I'm talking about the people like ADigitalman who are willing to buy an HD format but are "waiting out" the "format war."

Post
#306865
Topic
Blu-ray Disc or HD-DVD?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/306865/action/topic#306865
Time
Originally posted by: lordjedi
Originally posted by: Johnny Ringo
You really shouldn't be asking us.

So, I guess I should buy a PS3, huh.


I really can't tell if you are being sincere or sarcastic. I wouldn't, But hey, It's your money...In any case, you should look at everything that's available to you and decide for yourself. Don't be a hater, Just be happy with what you've got.

In terms of Bluray. If you steer clear of 1.0 profile you SHOULD be okay. As far as I know you can't go from 1.0 to 2.0 outside of PS3.

I know I'm probably in the minority but I really hope Bluray loses. I really can't stomach the thought of Sony being in control. But I guess we'll just see how things pan out.


You cannot buy a 1.0 profile player anymore. 1.1 profile was REQUIRED as of November.

At this point, there's no reason to believe that Blu-ray even has a chance of losing. Only two studios are left in the HD-DVD camp. HD-DVD has essentially lost the battle.

Blu-ray outsells HD-DVD 6:1


Wow, that is amazing! 6 to 1?? I never thought we'd see that so soon. I'm not sure if those numbers will continue but its still a real kick in the teeth to HD-DVD that shows how many fence-sitters jumped in the Blu-Ray yard after the Warners announcement.
Post
#306823
Topic
Blu-ray Disc or HD-DVD?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/306823/action/topic#306823
Time
If i had disposable income I'd go the PS3 route. Many of my friends have done this and it seems like the best way to go--you get a great Blu-ray player and an upconverting DVD player, plus an okay game console that you have the option of playing if you wish; if you really want HD-DVD capability then you can just throw a $99 standalone player to your home theater and voila.
Post
#306710
Topic
Film grain is not your enemy.
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/306710/action/topic#306710
Time
Originally posted by: Johnboy3434


Originally posted by: zombie84
Your assumption that grain is an undesireable "fault" of the filmstock" is incorrect.


Which is incorrect: that it's undesirable, or that it's a fault? If the former, that's simply artistic preference. If the latter, then I'm afraid you're the one that's incorrect. When people make film, they don't go down the list saying "Celluloid? Check. Sprocket-holes? Check. Grain? Check." Grain is a side-effect of the use of film, caused by imperfections in the film itself. From an engineering (read: purely technical) standpoint, imperfections are inherently undesirable. Does that mean nobody likes it? Of course not. Some people are only attracted to those in the 300+ pound range, as well. Doesn't mean the object of their desire is in good shape. You like lower-grade film (not the movie itself, but the film), and I respect that. You just need to admit it.


Sorry, your still making assumptions. Its not a "fault"--that its a "fault" lies on the presupposition that a crystal-clear image is an asset, or that anything less is undesireable. Maybe you would never want anything less than crystal clarity, but guess what? Thats just you. Grain is not an "imperfection", its simply an element of a photograph, one that is often desired by filmmakers, and as I said at the very least accepted as an aesthetic element in the art of motion picture photography.

The whole clarity=quality argument is a fallacious one created by HD. Its an aesthetic. Film is another aesthetic. Film is softer, film is higher resolution, film has a texture created by the silver halide crystals that compose the image (what gives it its grain). Don't confuse assumptions and personal aesthetics with "imperfections" in anything lacking those elements.