logo Sign In

zombie84

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

Post History

Post
#300679
Topic
Does the PT work as a fun & fluff comic book production?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/300679/action/topic#300679
Time
Originally posted by: see you auntie
Zombie can you qualify your statement about it being cheaper to shoot on film a bit further?

Do you mean back then, now or both?

Especially back then and now as well.

Or do you mean film vs digital resulting in comparitive image quality? I really don't know what I'm talking about and would like a bit more detail.

I mean in terms of pure financial cost--but in terms of aesthetics digital looks very poor comparitively as well. Its getting better everyday--for instance Superman Returns, filmed on the Genesis system, is the pinacle of digital cinematography so far and looks quite good, but its not near as good as 35mm. At least, however, we have now advanced digital cinema beyond the aesthetic and technical limitations of 16mm.

Because obviously there are a lot of lower budget films and indie films being shot digitally now and for the cheap with pretty good results (not film quality though)


Thats a totally different world. Low budget and no-budget films have been totally revolutionised by digital cinema because they can now record a decent image at a fraction of the cost were it done on film--and I mean a fraction. Its astounding how much cost savings and how much power has been put into the hands of those without million-dollar studio backing.

But here's the thing: they don't use the same cameras that people like Lucas use. They could never, ever afford to use the same cameras used on ROTS or Superman Returns because those cost more than shooting top-of-the-line 35mm with a digital intermediate. To shoot a feature film using the Sony F-900, or the Panavision Genesis, as ROTS and Superman Returns were, is to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars just on the camera rental. Thats literally just the cost of having he camera on set. That doesn't count the price of digital storage, downconversion, coloring, or any of the other post-production expenses that come with such high-resolution formats, which are equally as expensive.

The indie revolution is in low-cost, low-res, relatively-low-quality digital technology. Until the RED system gets here--but thats a whole nother issue.

An example: Was 300 filmed digitally and as of 2006 would it be cheaper to shoot it digitally or on film regarding everything you mentioned above?


300 wasn't filmed digitally. It was shot on 35mm film, mainly using Panaflex cameras, but I've seen some Arri 535 and 435's being used in the behind the scenes footage. It gets that digital look because so much of the backgrounds are digital, but the live-action was all captured on 35mm film. One of the reasons is that HD cannot do slow-motion and slow-motion ramping--and 300 is full of those shots. These are some of the many limitations of HD so far that really need to be overcome before it can begin to seriously compete with film.

In addition to your points further cost factors between Ep1 and Ep2/3 would be shooting locations. Ep1 was in the UK at Elstree while the 2 sequels were filmed at Fox Studios in Australia. Australia being considerably cheaper.


Good point, I had forgotten about that.
Post
#300654
Topic
Does the PT work as a fun & fluff comic book production?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/300654/action/topic#300654
Time
Actually, it costs much more to shoot digitally. The cameras cost more, the accessories and lenses cost more, you have to spend more time lighting, and your post flow is way more expensive. And in the case of AOTC because the camera was so low-tech because the technology wasn't really even ready, ILM had to spend more time getting green-screen extractions than on a film shoot. Its a total fallacy that digital is cheaper, one created by producers and marketing folks at camera companies, because its much, much cheaper to do it on film, and it looks a million times better--even if digital were cheaper, I can't see how a billionaire would want to shoot digital, but Lucas has this fetish for technology, and he got seriously burned by it on every prequel film.

As far as pricing, the reason TPM cost more was because it had a lot of the R&D done on that film. Effects-wise it was breaking new ground, and when it came time to do AOTC there was less inventing to do because a lot of it was already there, and they had a ready librbary of plates, animations, etc that they could recycle. There was still plenty of work to do--they made most of their experiments in digital doubling and digital characters--but not as much. TPM also had the most location shooting, with lengthy trips to Tunisia where all the full-scale podracers and significant portions of Mos Espa, the slave quarters, etc. was built. By the time they got to ROTS, effects had advanced so much that it wasn't necessary to do any main-unit location shooting, and there really was no major innovations to make--I think it was said that it was rather the culmination of all their previous efforts.

At the time, TPM was still very expensive, there was still enormous cost-savings because of the way Lucas made in the film and the fact that he owned many of the elements, but $100-$120 million was really the norm for big, effects-driven action blockbusters at the time. I mean the Matrix cost half of that, now that is something impressive, but movies like Godzilla and the like were all in that 100-120 mill range. Lucas' original hope was to do the film for around $70 million, but that wasn't realistic at all. AOTC cost less as I said, but its really not that less--most similar films at the time were in the $150 million range, but were they to attempt what Lucas did they would be much more. I mean The Two Towers has a lot of the same scale and cost much less but much of it was location shooting, while AOTC has a lot of alien things like Coruscant and Geonosis that are entirely false-reality, so I suppose it would be more like a $200 movie had it been made by someone outside Lucasfilm. ROTS is the real breakthrough, because that is more location-based in story than all the other films, yet it cost the same and was all in studio and doesn't look like a PS2 game the way AOTC does.

But in terms of ESB, ESB didn't have that big a budget for its day. I mean it did, but it wasn't unheard of, the reason Lucas made a big stink was because it was his own money. Apocalypse Now cost almost as much, and stuff like The Black Hole and Star Trek: The Movie are getting in the same range. Really, ESB was a fairly realistic budget at roughly $30 million considered the scope and quality of content and compared to contemporary blockbusters of its time. Preportionally, TPM isn't that far off from matching it. What was impressive about the prequels wasn't that they were inexpensive, because they weren't except for ROTS, its what they were able to accomplish for what they paid. TPM was a $150 mil movie made for $120, AOTC a $200 mil movie made for about the same, and ROTS a $250 mil movie made for even less. The problem IMO is that even though thats impressive to Lucas the Businessman, it really shouldn't be to Lucas the Filmmaker, because the effects aren't convincing in most of them. Really to get things to the OT level of realism Lucas needed to actually spend $150 mil on TPM (making it a $200 mil movie made for $150 mil), needed to actually spend $200 mil on AOTC (making it a $300 mil movie made for $200--because thats what Lucas was attempting, and thats why the movie looks like shit). In fact, if he could just control his tech-fetish and shot AOTC on film like anyone who actually knows about imaging systems would tell him (as oppose to Lucas, who wanted to do it simply for the sake of it) then he could have saved millions in cost because thats how much those pieces of shit HD Sony cameras cost him, and that money could have been spent on building better sets or making better CG.
Post
#300600
Topic
Does the PT work as a fun & fluff comic book production?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/300600/action/topic#300600
Time
Actually, that is why I feel TPM sort of works as its own slef-contained children's fantasy film. It doesn't take itself seriously, its quite fun and light, and it has its own story thats resolved by the end. Its a very imaginative film that has a very genuine conviction in its own vision. Now of course its kiddie, of course some of the writing and characterisation could be much better--but thinking of it as just a children's film, something designed for kids between the ages of 5 and 14, that doesn't matter so much. And the kid-friendliness of the film is an asset, not a flaw. I've always felt that TPM was terrible as a Star Wars film but actually pretty entertaining as just a kids movie that you shouldn't expect much from.
Post
#300485
Topic
Cash cow-abanga shit, another SW OT dvd repackaging for the holidays! Luca$$$
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/300485/action/topic#300485
Time
Originally posted by: Mielr
The photo I'm seeing in the first post doesn't look like the Best Buy tin I bought. The one I have has the color poster art with Luke holding the blaster.


Yes, since that was the OOT they used vintage poster art. This one uses the 2004 SSE art, which I am taking as meaning it is another 2004 re-pressing (since it is 4 disk, this is really all it could be). I'm surprised that they are still selling these things given all the technical errors. Are they ever going to fix those or is this seriously how Star Wars is going to look forever simply because Lucas wasn't paying attention when he approved the transfer (which is exactly the case--he supervised the new color correction and approved it)
Post
#300456
Topic
Cash cow-abanga shit, another SW OT dvd repackaging for the holidays! Luca$$$
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/300456/action/topic#300456
Time
Exactly. I believe it was really Toshiba and Microsoft--the makers of HD-DVD--who refused to collaborate, since there was a big push to combine the two formats into a singular format that would then be shared by the two sets of corporations--but corporate greed won out because why share half the profits when you could potentially have them all. The absolutely near-sightedness of this, the stupid thought that having two formats would somehow actually stimulate the marketplace instead of dividing it, is actually thought to be a deliberate act of deceit on the part of Mircosoft to create the format war and open a window for the direct-download market which it is creating to thrive. Well it worked! Thats fine for microsoft, but for all the other companies that backed that decision and don't stand to benefit I have to wonder what the hell were they thinking? Because honestly, even though they would share half the profit, that profit would be more than double today's sales because everyone would be buying.
Post
#300099
Topic
Would you give up ESB in exchange for...?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/300099/action/topic#300099
Time
Originally posted by: skyjedi2005
this question is rediculous it would be like saying you would give up godfather II and just have the godfather to get rid of the awful part III.

for the most part movie sequels are not better than the originals except for the exception of empire strikes back and godfather II, and star trek II.

back to the future II and III were inferior to part one, both rocky and rambo went down hill after film number one so also did die hard.

Thats not at all an apt comparison though. Godfather had a so-so third entry like Star Wars, but there isn't four more sequels that are many times worse than part III, there isn't 20 million paperback spin-off novels and there isn't thirty different comic series, and although there is now a game its really the only spin-off material.

For me, the situation is similar to Rocky. Rocky was a terrific, terrific film, a great classic American movi; I mean the thing won an Oscar for best picture! The sequels--well, Rocky II and III are mostly watchable, and Rocky Balboa is actually quite good. But still--Rocky became known as all that is bad in sequelising, the neverending "Part X", and although the first two sequels weren't terrible hey werent particularly good either, and parts IV and V were just pieces of shit that really brought down the reputation of "Rocky" because now it was just seen as this terrible franchise that kept making successively worse entries in a shameful attempt at capitalisation. Even though the original is still ultimately seen as a classic in the same way Star Wars is, I would rather Rocky had just remained a classic 1970's character drama that won the best picture Oscar and never been sequelised. But even Star Wars is much more extreme than this, because of all the comic books, novels, RPG games, card games, video games, and the neverending stream of merchandise. Back to the Future, Godfather and Indiana Jones never endured a fraction of the fall that Star Wars does, and even those series have only three movies, none of which are flat-out bad, in the same way that the OOT did. If it were 1983 I would vote no, the sequels did some harm but they are more or less acceptable, but in 2007 my vote is yes, Star Wars is now more comparable to Star Trek than to Godfather as a franchise.
Post
#300079
Topic
Star Wars Vault or the Making of Star Wars?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/300079/action/topic#300079
Time
Without having yet seen the Vault myself, I can however say that Rinzler's Making of is probably the absolute best product on behind-the-film to ever have been released. I don't care how good The Vault is, get Rinzler's Making of, because that is an absolute necessity IMO, definitley the best behind-the-scenes book I have ever read and I guarantee that you will not regret. The Vault is a sort of typical "bonus material" type stuff but The Making of Star Wars is absolutely definitive.
Post
#299972
Topic
‘Artist’ Chains Up Dog Until It Dies… Is This Art? Or Animal Abuse?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/299972/action/topic#299972
Time
I think he's just calling it art as a legal defense to try and somehow lighten the act, sort of the way people can claim insanity as a way of explaining heinous actions for a lighter sentence (ie if the accused did what he did in the belief that it was acceptable " as art" then his actions are somewhat less responsible). The flaw in that logic that its not art OR abuse, because one is not exclusive of the other, especially since the whole artistic merit defense is entirely subjective, at the very best one could say its both artistic and abusive--murderous, actually--and hence the existance of the former is not explainable of the latter. I mean the family in Texas Chainsaw Massacre could use that excuse--their human skin lampshades and bone chairs are obviously signs of a high degree of craftsmanship...
Post
#299966
Topic
Would you give up ESB in exchange for...?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/299966/action/topic#299966
Time
Its not that I think they should be destroyed or whathaveyou--far from it. It is merely that had I the choice of determining the course that history took, I would have preferred it that Lucas moved on to other things after Star Wars and never made any sequels. That is really what the question is posing.

As, CO pointed out quite correctly, ESB was a double-edged sword in that on the one hand it gave us a great film but on the other set Star Wars along the course that has it ended up where it is today, which ultimately I think I regret that it took.

So while Lucas' never returning to make sequels to Star Wars would have in effect robbed us of ESB, I think what we would have gained--or more accurately, never lost in the first place--is in some ways equally as powerful as ESB. Because now, although we can use our imagination to pretend that there are no sequels when we watch the original version of Star Wars, you can't unknow what you know, because even if you try really hard theres no way to totally trick your mind into forgetting about Yoda, Lando, Han and Leia in love, any of that stuff, even if you can put it out of your mind and try to just get caught up in the story of the first film. For most people, by the simple fact that the sequels exist, they will never be able to totally watch Star Wars as it was meant to be watched in 1977, and although what one would gain through this may seem small on one hand, I feel that that film was so powerful that even something as small as that nearly amounts to ESB. And then there is the fact of the SE, PT, EU, etc--those things are more easily ignored, but I still feel as though the world of cinema would be such a better place had they not had the chance to be made in the first place. So on those grounds, and others I won't go into, had I the power to choose how history went I think I would rather just have Star Wars as a totally kick-ass classic film from 1977.
Post
#299950
Topic
Would you give up ESB in exchange for...?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/299950/action/topic#299950
Time
I voted Yes, as well. My explanation I already explained in the "Lucas can't find home for TV" thread, which is where I assume this thread was born from. Basically, I've had it with all the shit that the Star Wars series has become. All the comics, all the video games, all the books, they all suck and have turned it into another unremarkable sci-fantasy series; on top of that, the SE has overwritten the original and the prequels all sucked and totally sullied the reputation of the series. Even ROTJ I don't really like all that much, I mean its good but its not all that remarkable either. The only really good sequel is ESB, that was really the first and last great spin-off from 1977's Star Wars, and even though its great to me all the shit thats piled up over the years has outweighed and buried it as well. Instead of Star Wars just being this absolutely great classic of cinema, the best parts of Lawrence of Arabia and Wizard of Oz combined, its the fourth episode in an overbloated saga about a creepy child-killer without any developed personality or interesting qualities. What happened to Star Wars after 1983 has slowly and surely eroded what was once considered one of the most important films ever made in history to a mere "fourth episode" in which some fans of the series say its so-so and prefer the hollow, Disney-character-infested prequels. As much as I love ESB, I would be willing to sacrifice it to save Star Wars.
Post
#299872
Topic
"Lucas can't find home for Star Wars spin-off"
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/299872/action/topic#299872
Time
I don't think its a "Basher Sactuary" or extremist mentality at all. What Star Wars meant before it got out of control as a franchise has been lost. It could have been just a classic piece of cinema, a timeless fairy tale in the vein of Wizard of Oz that stands as a flawless family classic and a monumental piece of American cinema that changed the course of history and imprinted itself firmly on the pop culture of its time.

ESB and ROTJ, though great and good films that remain among my favourites, warped and changed that perception to a degree that is quite insidious. Instead of a mass-audience classic film, like Lawrence of Arabia or Jaws, it became part of a franchise; while both of those sequels, I'm sure most would agree, are about as terrific as sequels can possibly get, they still don't hold a candle to the magic simplistic and direct power that Star Wars enveloped upon its audience. Not only that, but said sequels changed the story of that film to large degrees, even if the basic heart of it still remained the same. If it was just ESB and ROTJ I would probably say that its acceptable that Star Wars got diminished, because it wasn't that diminished and those two follow ups are pretty decent, all things considering. But the prequels are just so far removed from what Star Wars was like, so far removed from the story it was telling, so far removed from anything to do with that film, and it completely warped, distorted and in many ways destroyed the magic story on display in that film, building on the retcons of ESB/ROTJ and magnifying them. Aside from that, the public perception has totally changed due to these films, and new fans are entering that not only are totally oblivious to the original film's perception and power, but actually prefer the new identity--the contrasting, opposite version--that was brought in by ESB and the sequels and prequels. Taking this further, the EU that developed as a response to the sequels and prequels, and now has spawned countless books, comics and videogames, has changed Star Wars from a landmark cinema classic into an incidental film adaptation in this sprawling web of content, the vast majority of which is not only lousy in execution but completely removed from a direct relation to that original film. Additionally, the weakness of all of these subsequent entries has commulatively created a much more negative view of the original film, in that instead of being respected as a film like Lawrence of Arabia or Wizard of Oz might be respected my Joe Moviegoer (who may or may not have even seen said films), it is instead regarded as part of a dumb sci-fi franchise in the same manner that Star Trek and its various spin-offs are.

So, while I love ESB and like ROTJ, and while I may have been willing to accept the limited diminishing effect that those two sequels held on the original, it is a totally different ball game in 2007, where we have not two but five sequels, not one comic series (as there was in 1977-1983) but literally dozens, not three EU books as there was from 1977-1983 but nearly hundreds, where we have two--and presumably a third, final--Special Editions of the original film, where there are now three TV series being made or already made and where the sequels don't get nominated for Best Picture Oscars but Worst Picture Razzies.

What Star Wars lost is really only known by those who have continued to ignore all of those subsequent developments, and thus most Star Wars fans, especially those on the net who are into all that EU/SE/PT stuff that a lot of more casual fans don't care for, are largely ignorant to it. We here represent a specialised group with a high number of people who can actually see the growing diminishing effect on that classic film.

Because that is, above all else, what Star Wara is to me. Not "A New Hope," not Episode VI, not the first entry in an adventure trilogy or the fourth entry in an epic multi-generational melodrama, and not a singular filmic entry in a giant universe of other stories in books, comics and games--but simply a classic film, a landmark American movie that remains on "Great Films of All Time" lists usually somewhere between Godfather and Seven Samurai.
Post
#299809
Topic
"Lucas can't find home for Star Wars spin-off"
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/299809/action/topic#299809
Time
Personally, I now feel that the monumental power of Star Wars has been so diluted by the sequelising, prequelising and franchising of that film that I would actually prefer that none of the sequels didn't exist. Yes, I would prefer it if Empire Strikes Back, one of my favourite movies of all time, was never made, because that is how much has been lost and how much more Star Wars originally had going for it. The strange part is that I never felt that way in say, 1997. But now its just become too much. We had a modern Wizard of Oz and it became all the bad parts of Star Trek.
Post
#299721
Topic
Blu-ray Disc or HD-DVD?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/299721/action/topic#299721
Time
See, its bullshit like this that has turned me off the format completely. Its just so complicated and stupid, its entirely about corporate greed and has nothing to do with consumer benfits. Microsoft has put this format war to such unnecessary length thats its actually accomplishing what many presume has been Mircrosoft's intention all along: to sabotage the format. Because the truth is that most people have stopped caring. I'm behind Blu-Ray because its the better format but at this point I think I'd be most happy if both of them just withered away, because this whole mess is a complete cluster-fuck that confuses and divides consumers. HD will never win in a dual-format arena; it looked like HD-DVD was dead this summer but now its come back and probably by Christmas it will still be a stalemate--and i think that means that both formats will die. Consumers will willing to either ride out the war or take their chances with their preferred format for a year, but by 2008 people will be so sick of it all that they just won't care anymore. Look at what happened with SACD and DVD-A. Both of them were solid formats that offered a great opportunity to advance our audio format from the CD, but because there was a format war early adopters were divided, neither format took off, the all-important mass consumer lost interest, and both formats died, and now here we are still with the CD.
Post
#299443
Topic
"Lucas can't find home for Star Wars spin-off"
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/299443/action/topic#299443
Time
Thats not what Lucas meant though--he said actual films that are abstract and experimental like how THX and his student films are. Because Spider-Man 3 gave us 100% CG characters, Superman Returns gave us all digital filming, and every other blockbuster now shares these qualities. The only thing Lucas did before most was shoot on digital tape, but this was just a cost-saver because he had so many special effects in the movie (and ultimately the cost-saving factor failed). IMO Lucas will never make those movies of his, which he says he has brainstormed in note form; he was saying this in 1983 as well, and in 1977 as well, and actually all the way back to 1974. It started because of American Graffiti, which was a mainstream film that became a hit--Lucas didn't like being associated with the mainstream since he thought of himself as an experimental art-house type (ie THX) so he started saying that he would be getting back to his roots. Then he did the opposite and made Star Wars, and was even more uncomfortable that he was one of the biggest hollywood success stories ever, so he said he was going to get back to his roots. Then he made Raiders and two Star Wars sequels, and his reputation was cemented, so he said he was retiring from blockbusters and one day he'll come back to his experimental art-house films that "are destined to fail." Skywalker Ranch was completed, which he said was built for the very purpose of self-creating these "little art house experiments", but then he just used it to work on blockbusters like Ghostbusters, Willow and Hook. Then when he finally returned to the directors chair he just made more Star Wars.

Now he says he will be doing these little art films--but then he goes on to make Indy IV, and two Star Wars TV series, which it now appears he is co-writing. By the time those are both released it will be after 2010, and maybe if we are lucky Lucas can get Red Tails made--which is not a small, personal art film but a big-budget historical action-drama about WWII dogfights. By that time he will be in his mid-70's, and I'm sure will retire, live his twilight peacefully in Lucas Land and then pass away sometime not long after due to his diabetes. Really, I think this whole "I'm an experimenter, I will make small personal films that everyone will hate because I'm avante-garde" is just his way of coping with mainstream fame.
Post
#299402
Topic
"Lucas can't find home for Star Wars spin-off"
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/299402/action/topic#299402
Time
Actually, the Ewok Adventure tv movie was quite successful--in Europe it was even released theatrically, and they eventually made a sequel. Droids was somewhat popular and lasted two or three seasons, and the Ewok cartoon was equally successful. Young Indy had a hard time in the ratings but I think that was due to a changing timelsot--the same thing happened with Futurama and Firefly, explaining why critically-praised shows with a hugely devoted fanbase managed to get cancelled. Like the aforementioned shows, Young Indy still returned in made-for-TV edits and then was released on video in the late 90's, and became a highly-requested DVD title. So while Lucas never had a hit TV show the way he did with his films, I wouldn't say he was unsuccessful, he just always stayed in that sort of average, non-remarkable region that most TV series achieve, but because it is Star Wars people still remember Ewok Adventure and Young Indy even after ten and twenty years.

And of course, as was pointed out, 1985 and 1993 are not 2008 and 2009, when the new series will be out--in a lot of ways Young Indy was ahead of its time, it is the type of big-budget drama that you see all over the tube nowadays and i think if its was re-broadcast it would still find a considerable audience even after fifteen years. Aside from that, the Clone War cartoon from 2003 and 2004 was massively popular and i have to admit very well done, for what it was. In a lot of ways it gave me hope, because it showed that Star Wars spin-offs, even PT-based ones done in 5-10 minute episodes, could be highly entertaining. So I have to say, as always, to wait and see how the live-action series turns out, because as dangerous as it could be to the franchise, theres an equal, if not higher chance of it being pretty decent, and even quite good. Since we know almost nothing about it other than when it will be set, its really too early to say how it will play. And as far as audience and network, all I have to say is "Battlestar Galactica"; Lucas has stated that he is looking at specialty networks like HBO and Sci-Fi Network that would be interested in more ambitious and niche-market TV material such as what he is planning.
Post
#299075
Topic
"Lucas can't find home for Star Wars spin-off"
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/299075/action/topic#299075
Time
I think Randy is pretty much right. Its Star Wars--as much as people disliked the prequels they still saw them, and they'll venture to check out the new series too. If it was set at the time of the PT I think it would have much less an audience in terms of fans--but this thing will have stormtroopers, star destroyers, probably x-wings and TIE fighters, and from the sounds of things Boba Fett. Its got a lot of OT elements in it. Now--that will draw people to the show, but whther they stay or not is purely up to the quality of the program. With the PT people kept coming back because they knew ahead of time that the story would get better, and there was only two more films after TPM. If the show sucks fans will watch the first three or four episodes and see if it improves and if it doesn't they'll drift away. But if its good it will definitely find an audience. Look at Battlestar Galactica--talk about niche audience, a laughably-remembered 1970's sci-fi series that was dead and forgotten. But they made the new series really good and it attracted a large audience--it was still niche-based in the sci-fi-fan specialty for the most part, but so is Star Trek and the like, and theres nothing wrong with that.

So, really the show could go far. People will tune in for the pilot and first few episodes out of curiosity, but after that its up to the strength of the show itself, and if its actually good then people will continue watching, and it could even rescue the rep of Star Wars in the same way that the new Battlestar Galactica made it okay to be a fan of that series.
Post
#299016
Topic
"Lucas can't find home for Star Wars spin-off"
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/299016/action/topic#299016
Time
Trust me, none of these leaks are intentional. The truth is that its pretty easy for someone involved with a series to get ahold of footage--for instance, I just finished work on a new TV series, and borrowed a few of the completed episodes out of curiosity to see what the show is like. One is just a rough cut from the editor but another is the completed episode. They are on DVD, in high quality broadcast-ready form. Nobody knows and it would be impossible to trace to me, and if I really wanted to I could easily post them online--and the show is not scheduled to debut until the new year! I would never do that, aside from the fact that its not a top-rated show like 24 or Weeds, but it goes to show how easily digital post-production has made leaks.
Post
#298711
Topic
What If The SE Were Only...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/298711/action/topic#298711
Time
Originally posted by: Mielr
Originally posted by: Fang Zei
The original U.S. version of Blade Runner was never released on video at all (if I'm not mistaken)
Do you mean the version with Ford's narration and the "happy" ending?


You are mistaken. Blade Runner became one of the most popular video titles when it was released in 1982, and the directors cut did not exist until ten years later.
Post
#298710
Topic
What If The SE Were Only...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/298710/action/topic#298710
Time
I still have to side with LFL--"limited time until [insert date here]" is a common marketing gimmick, and it never means that literally all copies will be forcibly yanked from shelves after that date. It just means that production will cease, thus it is limited to that date. Disney does it all the time, for example, and in virtually every "limited time" sale it just means that no new copies will be produced after that date. With regards to Faces and the OOT, I have to side with LFL in the best-intentions motive, in that I truely believe that Lucas intended that they never be sold again, simply because that is what he wanted, and what he tried to do. That ad campaign ended up being inaccurate due to the 2006 release but that was unplanned, in effect we sort of forced their hand--had they been the ones to decide things they would have stayed true to their word. So, although technically they were in hindsight inaccurate, I still believe they were being honest, and thank god it didn't turn out to be true.

After the 2006 OOT release, their previous sales model was effectively destroyed--and I think they may have at least considered that suppressing the OOT forever was not a realistic option. I think that Lucas honestly believed that no one would ever want to bother with the OOT after the SE came out. But since all the backlash I think LFL realised that not only is there a market for the original, but that it represents a treasured classic that is in some ways bigger than them, ie all the bootlegs and fan-rips. Thats why I am 100% certain that it'll be released again, sometime, in higher quality--the sales model of 1995 is undone, and that means it has been reversed. But because of the percieved-rarity of the OOT they aren't outright admitting this--and I think this is wise, because with LFL things are never certain so they don't want to make any promises--so instead of saying "now its REALLY the last time" they are instead saying "this is a limited release."
Post
#298707
Topic
What If The SE Were Only...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/298707/action/topic#298707
Time
Just because the DVD haven't all been sold doesn't mean LFL is being dishonest--"limited time" mean they are produced until a certain time, in this case the end of 2006, and then production ceases. The copies you see lying around are excess stock that was manufactured before 2007 but remain unsold on store shelves. In the same manner that the Faces sets were limited to 1995, but i remember as late as 1997 seeing them in bargain bins at Blockbuster. The remaining copies of the 2006 OOT will probably be bought up this holiday season but if you really looked I'm sure it will be not too difficult to find them into 2009.
Post
#298568
Topic
Movies you watch during the Halloween season
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/298568/action/topic#298568
Time
The first two Evil Dead's are mandatory. The rest of the viewing usually depends on whom I am with and what their tastes are--Friday the 13th marathons are not uncommon, last year I did a Childs Play marathon, and this year it looks like a Sleepaway Camp marathon might be in the works; I usually try to squeeze in Romero's Dead trilogy and the Exorcist if I can. Problem is I watch a lot of horror films regularly so Halloween viewing is not that special--I usually end up watching the cheesy stuff like Sleepaway Camp that I would never watch any other time.

Oh, and lets not forget The Simpsons Halloween Special.
Post
#298565
Topic
What If The SE Were Only...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/298565/action/topic#298565
Time
What if the "Star Wars Special Edition" was actually the "Star Wars Special Edition" and not a replacement for the original. I was so damn excited when it first came out because it was supposed to be a fun enhancement on the original, not a replacement for it. I didn't like all the changes but I could shrug and say "meh" because at the end of the day I still had the original. Stuff like Greedo shooting first would still get harped on but we wouldn't fixate on it because we wouldn't have to, those that can tolerate dumb stuff like that can enjoy it and we could all go back to enjoying the original the way we had the previous twenty years.
Post
#298132
Topic
Just noticed in ANH SE
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/298132/action/topic#298132
Time
I think the reason it was exercised was because Lucas actually was showing Luke's father as a boy in Episode I, obviously without any Rebel Leader character, so for the purposes of continuity he decided to make things easier and snip it out. Because honestly if he left it in we would all be here complaining about how in Star Wars red leader says he knew Anakin as a boy but in Episode I theres no mention of him. Theres enough continuity issues in the PT as it is, here was one that Lucas actually caught.
Post
#298060
Topic
Just noticed in ANH SE
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/298060/action/topic#298060
Time
Good catch--its a digital foreground cross to hide a time-cut. Original Rebel pilot remembers Luke's father as a great pilot that he knew as a boy. Thats why Rebel leader's attitude changes rather abruptly. The original scene scene had Biggs say "Sir, Luke is the best bush pilot in the outer rim territories," to which Rebel Leader says "Skywalker? I knew your father when I was a boy. He was a great pilot. If your half the man he was you'll do okay." The middle part was cut out and hidden with a digital foreground cross of an extra.