logo Sign In

zombie84

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

Post History

Post
#279722
Topic
PT: Directors, Actors, Writers?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/279722/action/topic#279722
Time
Cjedi, Hayden's "whining" and general poutiness in certain parts of AOTC and ROTS is less to do with his actual acting and more to do with the way the director chose to conceive the character. Some people think Dicaprio would have been a better choice, and while i do indeed find him to be a better actor, it would not have made the difference--instead you would have Dicaprio, another fine actor, rendered into an annoying brat whining "its all Obi Wan's fault! *pout*". Thats what it comes down to. As you said, if Lucas made the character older--more mature--he could have had better and more compelling options; but he didn't--he chose to characterise him as young and immature, and no mater who filled the shoes of Anakin Skywalker he would have still had to portray a young and immaturely characterised person. The conception and dialog that Lucas chose to shape Anakin with turned him into a whiney poutey sissy, and Christenson did what he could--and he even admits that he was utterly perplexed why Lucas was pushing him in that direction, instead wanting to play it cooler, more controlled and Vader-ish. As for Christenson's other roles--yes, he is typecast as the "angsty/troubled teen" and so the whininess is often seen. But thats not a limit of his acting ability--thats an inherant flaw of the characters he is unfortunately stuck playing. In the scenes where he is granted more realistic characterisation where he can show his range, he is utterly convincing--perhaps not brilliant, but certainly above-average (whatever the case, not flat-out bad).

Portman too, while not always someone who will blow you away with a performance, usually delivers ones that are natural and that make you forget you are watching an actor pretend or read from a script (unless you are constantly directed by the self-awareness of her celebrity, which is a common roadblock). Films like Leon, Closer, Beautiful Girls, Cold Mountain and Garden State all show what range and believabiliy she can project, even if not all of these examples are necessarily in the same category as the likes of Neeson or August.
She was i think 16 at the time she made TPM, and 18 or so by the time AOTC was shot, and of the available actresses to play a role of that age bracket, i can't think of anyone greater than her.

Samuel L Jackson too is a great performer--he has a larger-than-life personality that is often self-aware of his own image, and this frequently needs to be controlled and shaped--and used to proper benefit-- by a competant director in order to render a good character out of him. Films like Pulp Fiction, Jungle Fever and A Time to Kill show him at his best, but ever lesser efforts like Changing Lanes, Sphere or Jurrassic Park show the variety and subtle characterisation changes that can be wrought out of him.
Post
#279689
Topic
PT: Directors, Actors, Writers?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/279689/action/topic#279689
Time
The cast was the best thing about the trilogy. Ewan McGregor, Liam Neeson, Natalie Portman, Samuel L Jackson, Jimmy Smits...the cast reads like a who's-who of the acting elite of the early 21st century. And Hayden Christenson, unconvincing as he often is in the films, is a terrific actor--one has to only look to his other work, which is consistently of high quality. Portman too is completely stilted and unconvincing in the PT--using these films as a point of reference, one would have to conclude that she should have never got into acting in the first place. Until you look outside the PT and realise the astounding talent she displays--Cold Mountain, Leon, Closer, etc.
The cast was absolutely first rate, especially when you add Ian McDiarmid and Pernilla August to the mix, underrated actors that are mostly of the stage background (for other instances of August one has to look no further than Ingmar Bergman's many wonderful plays and films).

If you have a cast as talented as that, one which outshines in pure talent and range such star-studded actor-vehicles such as Ocean's Eleven, how can you possibly, concievable do any wrong? What is most incredible is not that the PT wasn't a film which theater students should have studied, not that it didn't manage to garner any acting nominations at the Oscars or any other awards shows, but that the actors on display were so consistently poor in performance. Now, some of them are quite adequet, and in a few rare instances they actually impress, but when you consider the potential that lay in there it is a crime of galactic preportions that the PT had such tame and unremarkable performances.

How can anyone suggest that the cast was inadequet? On the contrary, i can hardly think of anyone to add. Thus, you see where the problem lies. Leave the cast alone--get a new director. If this is what Lucas can produce when he has such sickening levels of talent surrounding him i would hate to think he would have done had he not been supported by such generosity. Any director would kill for the cast Lucas recieved. One only needs to compare Natalie Portman's performances in Attack of the Clones and Closer--the actress is the same, but in one she is so bad that i often laugh out loud in embarrasment, and in another she is so captivating that i become lost in the illusion that she is not actually the person she is depicting onscreen.
Post
#279539
Topic
Expanded Universe Unacceptance
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/279539/action/topic#279539
Time
There was more than just Splinter of the Mind's Eye--there was a trilogy of Han Solo Adventure books in the late 70's, and then a Lando trilogy, i think in 1983, and the Marvel comic series began in 1977 i think.

Most of these kept the spirit and style of the original film, and were generally regarded as well-done expansions by fans in general. When Timothy Zahn's trilogy came out in 1991-1993, it was similar: most who read them really enjoyed them, and felt they remained faithful to the films, more or less. I mean this thing was huge, it was a smash hit, and it stayed on the New York Times Bestseller list for weeks and weeks--i dont think any EU novel has managed that since.

It was only in the mid and late 90's when the volume of material grew rapidly that a splintering of acceptance emerged. By 1995 there was like two dozen novels and an equal amount of simultaneously-running comic series. When it was just three or four novels things could remain faithful to the film and not seem tired--but by the mid-90's, the material within the EU was building its own exclusive universe that was slowly having less and less relation to the one portrayed in the movies. On top of that, while Lucasfilm was lucky in that the pre-1992 EU was generally decently-written, with the massive growth afterward the quality began to splinter again--some was well-done, much was adequet, and some of it was, frankly, horrible. It simply inevitable that these things would happen, its just a matter of numbers really. So thats where the EU splintering stems from. The PT was an extension of this, and of course the PT EU extended things even further. It has now resulted in a fictional universe that is often of a nature and style that is totally opposed to the original films, and so many people disregard it.

Personally, i love SOTME and the Zahn trilogy--SOTME is inconsistent with the original trilogy overall but it really does feel like a sequel to Star Wars, to the original film; this of course is because it was written as such, before any of the sequels were made. Similarly, Zahn's trilogy was written after the OT--it was the first post-ROTJ fiction and it really does capture the feel and style of the OT, and its expansions and elaborations feel like natural continuations of where ROTJ left off. Some of the EU afterwards is okay, but the vast majority of it is unappealing and poorly written, and the sheer quantity has now built a world that is totally unfamiliar to me.
Post
#279195
Topic
The Secret History of Star Wars
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/279195/action/topic#279195
Time
Originally posted by: Fang Zei
I noticed you pointed out the Rosie O'Donnell interview. I remember watching that! She thought Darth Maul was actually Mace Windu in disguise and then actually asked George if she was right. His reply was a simple "no." She also asked him if he ever watched Star Trek and he said something like "I caught a few episodes but I wasn't a Trekkie or anything." I think he was also asked how long until Episode II would be released and it was "3 years, although I wish it was 4."

Yeah, and her desk was converted into an almost-life-size podracer. I remember Lucas looking kind of awkward and straining to be constantly funny--he isn't exactly the popular-talk-show type of material. It was an amusing moment of how far-reaching the TPM explosion was.

I've skimmed over huge sections now, including the one about George and Marcia's divorce. I didn't see anything addressing the rumors that Marcia got %15 of sales of the OT and that maybe that's why George changed them into different movies, aka the Special Editions.


That was a rumor that appeared out of nowhere with no evidence to substantiate it with, nor does it make any sense when you think about Lucas' motives for destroying the OOT--aside from the fact that the term special edition is not even used anymore. It was only used from 1997-1999. There is no more "special edition". Aside from that, it is extremely incoherant and implausible from a business contract standpoint. That rumor was pure bullshit from the get-go and i am still surprised at how many people humored its legitimacy.


according to the offcial site those who buy the star wars archives from steve sanweet and peter vilmer will get to read lucas story treatment for the empire strikes back, to the tune of 80.00 dollars.


what is the star wars archives? Is this similar to that book, From the Lucasfilm Archives, which was a collection of props, models and costumes? Fantastic book that was. $80 is a rip off but the rarity of reading Lucas' original ESB treatment is enticing enough to make me seriously consider it.
Post
#278523
Topic
The Secret History of Star Wars
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/278523/action/topic#278523
Time
Originally posted by: Erikstormtrooper
Zombie,

I've gotten about 91 pages into this, and I must say this is an extremely well-written work. I'm a technical writer, and I am just really impressed with your writing ability. There are a few places where I found things to be slightly repetitive, but I think your intention was to really drive home a few points.

In some instances, yes; in other instances it is merely the fact that i am an amature writer with no editor and no one has ever read this thing yet.

Since this will not be published or sold, would you consider adding some pictures to a future version? For example, showing early concept drawings, pictures of The Lightning, pictures of Buster Crabbe as Buck Rodgers or Flash Gordon. I think that would really put this over the top and make it virtually indistinguishable from a real published work.

I have thought about doing that. Really though, to integrate it into the book in any kind of professional looking design manner would require a lot of work and skill, neither of which i have. Most likely what i will be doing is making a large additional attachment that is entirely graphic oriented as a sort of supplement. I also plan on doing one of these entirely for Kurosawa's influence.

I've also read the appendix on the Journal of the Whills as well as your article on the new findings. I was wondering if this had occurred to you:

Pollock: "The story of Mace Windu, a revered Jedi-bendu of Opuchi who was related to Usby C.J. Thape, padawaan learner to the famed Jedi."

Bouzereau: "...about 'Mace Windy, a revered Jedi Bendu of Opuchi,' as told by 'C.J. Thorpe, Padawaan learner of the famed Jedi.'"

Consider that "related to Usby C.J. Thape" may not describe a relative, but instead may be just another way of saying "told to us by C.J. Thape". If this quote was originally culled from hand-written notes, I can see how "us by" may have become "Usby". So I am wondering if the Bouzereau quote is somehow more accurate, regardless of the mis-spellings.


That is brilliant! I had not considered that before but it makes total sense if it is a scratchy handwritten document with all sorts of weird words. Regarding the misspellings, it seems that Rinzler indicates that Bouzereau's version may be correct--he indicates it is Mace Windy, not Mace Windu. I'm really hoping that J.W. Rinzler will go into some detail (or any kind of detail for that matter) about what the story was about so we will finally know the answer to these types of questions. At least stuff like this keeps us guessing!

Ultimately, I am curious if your work on this book had anything to do with your feelings of being "finished" with Star Wars, which you recently expressed in the End of Star Wars thread.


Perhaps. After throwing myself into this project for two years, fighting for the GOUT and all the other stuff i think i am on the verge of a Star Wars burnout. Rinzler's book, however, is still holding my interest. At the time i made that post this book was in publishing limbo;now that I am done this thing i am at least feeling some kind of relief.


Anyway, hope you all are enjoying it.
Post
#278418
Topic
The Secret History of Star Wars
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/278418/action/topic#278418
Time
Originally posted by: Sluggo
I love this site!!

And Zombie, the "book" looks great. Other fans can take the EU and cram it with walnuts. This behind the scenes stuff is much more interesting, imo. Did you address Splinter of the Minds Eye being written with it in mind for a possible low-budget sequel to Star Wars? ADF has talked about it to some degree in interviews on starwarz.com. Anyways, I've liked what I've read so far.


Yes, that is discussed in detail.

I have updated the site with a new article--a re-evaluation of the Journal of the Whills. J.W. Rinzler, in his research for his upcoming The Making of Star Wars book, discovered a Star Wars story that predates the May 1973 synopsis.
Post
#278403
Topic
The Secret History of Star Wars
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/278403/action/topic#278403
Time
All i was doing was comparing the shaping of stories--ie when you look at how star wars began and how it ended up its amazing how far it came, the same way when you look at Christianity way back in its first years ie 100 CE and compare it to what it ended up as today you can see that it was changed quite a bit from its original inception by absorbing different mythologies and sociological influences from culture, especially the melting-pot Roman social culture from which it arose, which is historical fact. This is not anything unique to Christianity--in fact one of the more well-known instances of this process is in the Jewish faith where the merging of the original Jewish culture with Babylonian culture during their captivity gave birth to what eventually became the template for the modern Jewish faith. As Joseph Campbell once said, Mythology is religion and religion is mythology, and they are built and shaped in the same way because they are essentially the same thing, only one has been given a political context and one has remained as a storytelling device--which is why it was easy and natural for Star Wars to actually become a proper faith, even though it wasn't intended to be such as thing. I was just drawing a comparison to how a mythology is shaped-- i chose christianity because most readers are christian but it could be applied to any faith, as i mentioned. If you are ready to throw a book in the trash for one trifling passing reference that implies Christianity to be on equal ground with all the other religions/mythologies then you need to seriously get out more.
Post
#278388
Topic
The Secret History of Star Wars
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/278388/action/topic#278388
Time
Originally posted by: 20th Century Mark
I have not read it yet, but am lookiing forward to it. I do have a question - Is the book in it's complete form, or are you still doing revisions?


In a few months time I'll probably clean up a few things that are bothering me like some grammar and probably add an index, and my section on Journal of the Whills will unfortunately have a fairly significant re-edit, which i will probably post as its own summarised article--in other words, don't worry about waiting for fear of re-reading anything. The book is done. Anything added will be mentioned on the website.
Post
#278370
Topic
The Secret History of Star Wars
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/278370/action/topic#278370
Time
Originally posted by: Jumpman
zombie,

Which is all very true...but some of what you've written will be used as an "I told you so" mantra when it comes to the Prequels. For me, having read many of his interviews, it was pretty clear that he was making this stuff up as he went on or "mis-remembers" certain aspects and remembers others perfectly well. It is very interesting but at the end of the day, it just goes to show how all-encompassing the creative process is when it comes to film.

I mean, this guy literally to the last moments in the editing room of Episode III, was still shaping the overall thematic structure of the saga, even though the five previous films were already done. I find that fascinating that he can ever do that.

Some would see your essay as the definitive evidence as to why the Prequels "don't work." I find it as evidence that the films themselves have flaws but the whole of the Saga is perfect.

Some of your conclusions I don't agree with, but you do provide ample evidence to said conclusions...most of the time. Again, it's a very informative write-up, you've produced. And, I'm glad you're putting it out there.


I agree with you, and i think that 90% of the time, when he changed things it was for the better. I think Revenge of the Sith is actually quite decent but if he hadn't changed it, if he had left it as it was shot, i probably would think that it sucked as much as AOTC did, so i am glad that he made such drastic character changes in the editing. The only instance where his changes hurt the story is in TPM and this is in a very indirect way--its not that the story was made worse (i happen to think it was but this is just my personal opinion) but that the following two films were very much affected and compromised in ways that Lucas himself didn't fully realise at the time. Thats the real problem. AOTC was hampered by the fact that everything had to be re-introduced and sped through, and so it came off as disjointed and shallow, and then when he started writing ROTS he realised that he had sabotaged himself from the start so he had to totally re-write the story treatment in the summer of 2002 because "the bridge to Episode IV" was still way too far apart, as he says. Basically a three-film arc was squeezed into two films, and even then AOTC was still fairly irrelavant to the actual story by Lucas' own admission.

Really though, i don't think these things can really be used as significant "anti-prequel" fire--the prequels were lacklustre because the characters, pacing, directing and writing were weak, not because the story turned out a certain way. If the story for TPM, AOTC and ROTS were identical to the final film but handled with more convincing characters, scripting and performances i don't think there would be a lot of backlash--its really the execution rather than the overall plot itself, for most people anyway, though obviously the plot impacts the dynamics of the characters.
Post
#278362
Topic
The Secret History of Star Wars
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/278362/action/topic#278362
Time
Originally posted by: Jumpman
It doesn't make him look like a fool. It humanizes him, more than anything. I mean, how many people remember everything they've ever said....especially in a 30 year span?

The greatest thing this shows is the creative process of ALL films. Whether he was lying, he forgot, he's spinning, or he just naturally changed his mind on alot of decisions concerning Star Wars, it just shows a guy continually altering his art until he gets it where he wants it.

The truth about Lucas, as in all things, lies somewhere in the middle.

Interesting and informative write-up, zombie....


It really depends on the specific issue. For certain things you can see that he just plain forgot or "mis-remembered" how things happened, which is why the earlier quotes of his where his memory is still fresh are the most valuable (for instance in the Rolling Stone 1977 interview he very clearly describes the specific earlier drafts in fair detail, but by today he only speaks about them in general and often inaccurate terms). For other issues he has actually cleared up previous misconceptions and admitted to the vagueness of his own story, such as his recent admission to how much of the ROTJ story was "stretched thin" and had to be padded, and ditto for TPM and AOTC. Other subjects he is very clearly lying about, in bold and often ridiculous ways--such as his recent claim that his original script was The Tragedy of Darth Vader. But once you get past the frustration of dealing with all the times the true nature of the saga has remained obfuscated and hidden, there is a deeper respect to be found in the fluid and serrendipitous way with which the story was continuously invented. From the 1973 treatment to the 1977 film we have two completely different series, and from the 1977 film to the 1980 sequel we have yet another totally different series, one that splinters again with the developments in ROTJ and then splinters even more drastically for the prequels, ending with yet another totally different series, and each one of these was mostly made up as it was written and was beset with unexpected last-minute changes. Its fascinating to look at it this way. My conclusion for all of the misleading sentiments about having everything pre-written is insecurity--with the saga upheld as the century's eminent mythology, Lucas had to satisfy the public expectation that all was in capable hands and proceeding according to his meticulous planning, when really he was just making most of it up as he went.

In this respect, yes, it very much humanises him and reveals the man beneath the "Storyteller" and "Creator" facade. I think most people will have a new understanding and respect for him if they read this and discover a more honest account of how the saga was shaped, even if they are exposed to some dishonesties of his.
Post
#278023
Topic
The Secret History of Star Wars
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/278023/action/topic#278023
Time
For the better part of two years now i have been working on a book, which i have since titled "The Secret History of Star Wars." Its something that should be of interest to everyone in this forum and i think would benefit everyone to read it. It explores the writing and creation of the series, beginning before Lucas even wrote his first treatment in 1973 and tracing how that document came into existance, showing how the film was developed draft by draft and year by year. It explores how Darth Vader was merged with Luke Skywalker's father in 1978, forever altering the course of the series, how Darth Vader was turned into a sympathetic character in 1981 and then redeemed, and how the prequel stories came to be and shifted the franchise into a new six-film series, and basically charts the evolution of the series, shattering many myths and presenting some very seldom known facts. I also added a bunch of appendices to address other tangential issues, one of the more interesting ones being an uncovering of what the mysterious "Journal of the Whills" actually is.

There has never really been something as ambituous and far-reaching as this ever done in the fan community, which takes all the x-factors and disconnected little bits of knowledge and finally puts them all together in a cohesive "answer." In a way, that is what i hope this is--a sort of answer, a way for people to finally understand "ah, so that is how that happened." It explains the how, when and why of the Star Wars story itself.

It would be impossible to post this in the thread as some people do with their essays--it clocks in at over 400 pages--but i built a website for it. The book is available for download in PDF format and is just under 4 MB in size. A hefty read? I suppose so. But i guarantee that it will be worth it.

http://secrethistoryofstarwars.com

Also, to put an OT.com spin on it, although the book deals with the overall saga, and most people here will definitly enjoy the first six chapters on the origninal trilogy, the remaining four on the creation of the PT may be of interest--it may shed some light on "where the films went wrong." You can see how, where and why Lucas slowly began changing elements in the universe, and how the first draft of TPM was more along the lines of what we wanted to see--and see why and how he changed it into the TPM that we ended up with and how this affected the following two films. Its also very interesting to see how drastically ROTS was changed--the most major changes occuring after the film was even shot!
I don't have a "fan preservation" video to add to the community so in a way this is my fan preservation--it collects all the information and quotes that are seldom heard and are in danger of being swallowed up by time (ie Lucas original quotes on planning twelve films, Marcia Lucas' thoughts on the divorce, etc.).

enjoy!

http://secrethistoryofstarwars.com
Post
#277624
Topic
Six-Movie Star Wars Marathon at Celebration IV
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/277624/action/topic#277624
Time
I wonder what exactly they will be screening, and how? Will there be new prints made or high res digital projection from the digital masters, or will they simply be projecting the dvds, as is sometimes done? If they are from digital masters, i wonder if they will be any of the updated versions of the films, if such things are indeed coming. That would be quite the way to reveal them. Anyone who attends these screenings should be on the lookout for pink and green lightsabers in Star Wars--if theres not then these are brand new masters which will assumingly be made for an impending release. And if there are still pink and green lightsabers in Star Wars during a marathon screening organized by Lucasfilm for the 30th anniversary...then thats just dumb. But i guess it will go well with Greedo shooting first and Hayden Christenson in Return of the Jedi.
Post
#275214
Topic
How much does it cost Lucasfilm to make a DVD?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/275214/action/topic#275214
Time
Originally posted by: skyjedi2005
i believe mastering a regular dvd costs 5,000 american dollars. mastering high def costs 40,000. per title

this is if you have the digital video masters all ready to go.

it does not take into account digital restoration, color correction, additional effects or fixes costs, as well as the elements being transfered from film. Supposedly fox put up the twenty plus million dollars to restore the special editions from scratch starting with the original negative, and of course most of that restoration was done by hand along with the re-comps of original opticals being done with modern computer technology as well as the final digital scanning.

YCM Labs did the restoration.

then it was further restored by Lowry in 0'4, take in the cost to also restored the sound elements and dialogue tracks the sky is the limit on how much they actually spent. If it is that expensive may be why he is reluctant to spend his own money on restoring the oot. On top of that the original negative was altered. that is the best source for a restoration, being a first generation or no generation copy of the film coming right from the camera. that is what they used to restore the bond films by lowry the o-neg. sure Lucas must still have the interpositives or selected takes of those scenes on film rolls but the quality is at least 1 to 2 generations older than the o-neg.


The Special Edition cost 20 million--not the restoration. Creating a few minutes of totally new state-of-the-art CGI sequences and blending CGI into 20 year old footage costs a lot of money. The restoration was a complete overhaul of the film, re-comping all of the many optical effects, digitizing all of the blue-screen elements and plate shots, re-configuring the negative and repairing massively deteriorated footage.

What i am getting at is that it is not very expensive to just put a movie on dvd, nor is it much more expensive to do a less extreme restoration. What Lucasfilm did was more extensive than any other restoration in history because it wasn't just a restoration, it was re-building, re-making and enhancing the films almost from scratch.

The original negative can no longer be used simply to make a new OOT, so to make a copy from this would be problematic--but doable. Basically you could either break apart the SE-neg and put it back in its original OOT configuration, or you could scan the new SE-neg and then scan the missing OOT pieces and put them together in a new DI. This would require a bit of effort on LFL's part, probably running just over $100,000, pretty much a standard price for a DI. The other option would to just take a print--or better yet, a IN or IP--and just run a straight transfer, with the standard dirt/scratch/grain removal filters that come standard in telecine packages. This would not yield a perfectly clean version of the film, but it would be as sharp as any other classic film out there and would be imperfect but reasonably clean--and it would definitly blow everyone away with its resolution and clarity. The cost of doing this is practically peanuts, which is why worthless shit that only few people buy like Smokey and the Bandit 2 and Revenge of the Nerds 3 get the same treatment--way under $50, 000. Add authoring a master and creating a simple menu system and you are looking at a great looking version of Star Wars that would cost Lucasfilm just under $100, 000. So basically, if ever user in this forum bought a copy, Lucasfilm would already be making profit on the disk, and obviously this would sell a few million copies and not just a few hundred.
Post
#275044
Topic
What is a big fat ass dinosaur doing in my ANH?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/275044/action/topic#275044
Time
I don't mind the principle of it. Originally it was an astromech droid that did a foreground cross but Lucas replaced with something he felt more lively an interesting, a giant Ronto creature--because the scale of the creature is so much bigger than a droid, the timing of the foreground cross was destroyed and the creature blocks the screen for about a second and a half. This, however, i kind of like--it gives the shot a documentary-like realism, as if some beast just happened to be walking by as the shot was going on and obscures the action. For me, its really the bad CGI quality that bugs me--the ronto's generally held up in wideshot as they are seen in every other instance, populating the background, but in extreme foreground closeup, the texture and resolution just dont look real. As for dinasaurs--dewbacks were always there from the beginning, so dinasour-like beasts were always a background part of the alien universe. Its really with the SE and PT that Lucas made them more visible, and i am thinking that it is only because there technologically was no way to portray them as such in 1977.

Interestingly, the Ronto's are indeed evolved from dinasaurs--ILM took the brontosaurus CG model from Jurassic Park and turned it into the ronto, and then the gallimimus became the "scurriers" seen in the opening entrance shot.
Post
#275031
Topic
To those who own the OOT Sept Release & an HDTV
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/275031/action/topic#275031
Time
Upconverters are really only useful for dvds that looked good to begin with. Basically, they rescale the image to HD size, not simply blowing it up the way a "zoom" feature sort of works. The image doesn't look as good as a true HD one, but they still look pretty impressive considering. Like I said, however, this is really only useful for video that was decent to begin with. The 2004 SE dvd, for example, must look fantastic when upconverted because it was very high-resolution and about as sharp as a DVD could possibly look. The GOUT, i am sure, looks equally as crappy as it does on a SD television, if not worse. There just isn't the detail or resolution there to upconvert, especially considering it is super-grainey and non-anamorphic.
Post
#274067
Topic
Lucas @ The Oscars
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/274067/action/topic#274067
Time
Annie Hall appealed to cineastes and the intelligentsia, it was self-consciously aware "high art" with Euro art-house references and highbrown cinema in-jokes, a self-reflexive work of deconstructionism--it was practically made for Acadamy voters of the late 1970's. This is the type of material that would make Pauline Kayle cum, and i can see why it won. Star Wars on the other hand, while considered a grand and sweeping epic, was too juvenile and unserious to win over Annie Hall for Best Picture, which is why it was honored through nominations but ultimately passed over for the win. In hindsight of course it is perhaps the most culturally important film of the second half of the 20th century, but in early 1978 this wasn't exactly apparent.

Thats really as simple as it is. It wasnt age--Woody Allen was practically the same age as Lucas--nor was it politics or some kind of anti-Star Wars/Lucas conspiracy (the Academy loved the film and gave it many wins and nominations--including best director, picture, screenplay and supporting actor, pretty heavy stuff). Its like David Lean's Lawrence of Arabia versus Ingmar Bergman's Persona--both are great films, the Academy would love and honor both, but in the end Persona would win--at the time of the late 70's that is. That was the era of treating American cinema as "Serious" and "artistic" works of self-expression, of which Star Wars is often seen as the antithesis to.
Post
#274064
Topic
a rumor from thedigitalbits.com...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/274064/action/topic#274064
Time
Just like to point this out:

The GOUT sold well. It was number one on Amazon pre-orders for a long time. Considering that it was the same film re-packaged for the third time, that is damn good. I guess maybe Lucasfilm was expecting it to be this giant hit?? For a triple-dipped disk that was technically flawed from its initial release, that is one of the best dvd sellers of the year as far as i am concerned. So, the news that LFL considers it dissapointing to me is very strange.

Secondly, the news is not that the set has been cancelled, its that it is CONSIDERED being cancelled for fear of over-exposure. It may yet come out. Thirdly, there was already that press release, i think it was Lego, that said there was a new dvd set coming out; the news then is that a few execs are considering "maybe we should wait another year?" not "cancel the release right now." Considering its the 30th anniversary i can't see any logic in postponing it until any other date. But, you know, Lucasfilm and all--dumbasses.

Fourthly, i think there is a very significant item in the digitalbits rumor (remember--rumor) that should be highlighted. Nine-disk set. The prequel dvds are two disks each, totalling six--that leaves only three disks for the entire OT, in other words, movie-only, not even the GOUT or the 2004 bonus disk. This to me is even more perplexing--its just the previous releases, with less bonus material, in an expensive box? At least they could include the bonus disk. Just doesn't make sense.

For all these reasons, i am suspecting that maybe this report is bogus, or inaccurate at least. My feeling is that if LFL released a 30th anniversary boxset, it would probably include a few additional extras, like perhaps deleted scenes or a vintage doc on a second, exlusive bonus disk, plus maybe even the Clone War animated series which Lucasfilm sort of considers Episode II.5, and the GOUT would make sense considering this whole year Lucasfilm is really milking the "vintage" and "classic" imagry of the OOT for the anniversary. I still give digitalbits benefit of the doubt, but there are a few aspects to this report that i think are not quite right.
Post
#273818
Topic
It seems like nobody involved in the making of the Original Trilogy has spoken up about George Lucas’ oppression of the unaltered theatrical version of the OT.
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/273818/action/topic#273818
Time
I just don't think they care. Mark Hammil has always been very dedicated to the franchise and genuinely loves it, so he has always been sardonic towards it but i think that he doesn't really care enough to publicly diss an old friend like Lucas. Kurtz is pretty distant now and he has spoken out against Lucas more than once, but beyond these examples i really don't think Carrie Fisher or Harrison Ford gives a shit if Hayden Christenson is partying with Ewoks in ROTJ. The real people who must be totally pissed the fuck off is the SFX people like Denis Muren who have had their revolutionary work obliterated, but they have to remain silent because they are still employed by Lucasfilm/ILM and depend on Lucas for their livelihood!
Post
#273705
Topic
a rumor from thedigitalbits.com...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/273705/action/topic#273705
Time
To get back on topic, this boxset news is both dissapointing and unsurprising due to its blatant irrationality. In 2004 when digitalbits was reporting that Hayden and McDiarmid were being put into the OT i said "no, thats just dumb fanboy rumors" but they were right. In 2006 when digitalbits was reporting that the GOUT would be the Laserdisk transfer i said "no thats just dumb, its a new transfer" but they were right. I can't think of a more logical release than a mega boxset with the remastered OOT and a difinitive collection of all the Star Wars films and materials, but you know what? Lucasfilm has been run by fucking hacks for the last ten years or so and something as dumb as this is perfectly consistent. I gave LFL the benefit of the doubt the last two times and i was burned. This time i am trusting digitalbits, the best damn home video site on the internet and the most reliable for news of any kind.