logo Sign In

zombie84

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

Post History

Post
#273650
Topic
The Godfather DVD Collection
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/273650/action/topic#273650
Time
When i first saw the Godfather i was dissapointed. In fact i still think it is only so-so. Just be prepared: it is long, soap opera-ish and somewhat dated since it has been rendered a bit conventional due to its endless copying. Still an important film, but personally i wouldn't expect anything too mindlblowing. Strange for me as well since Coppola is one of my favourite directors. Godfather II on the other hand is magnificent, very different from the first film and more comparable to Coppola subsequent masterpieces The Conversation and Apocalypse Now in terms of direction and style.

The third entry was very criticised upon release. In truth, it is not all that great, but it definitly has its moments. The biggest thing is that it is so disconnected from the first two. To best approach the series it is best to do it the way Coppola himself designed the films: Godfather and Godfather II go together to form one story. Coppola ironically fought against titling the second film uniquely because he felt it was simply the second part to the first film. The film ends brilliantly and really finishes the saga. The third film was not supposed to be "Godfather 3", Coppola wanted it to be called The Death of Michael Corleone, and i think that shows how the film should be evaluated--a sort of epilogue off-shoot that is disconnected from the proper I/II story and gives a sort of different perspective to the character about his redemption.

Post
#273645
Topic
a rumor from thedigitalbits.com...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/273645/action/topic#273645
Time
Its the same dillemma i keep bringing up over and over again: how does the existance of the OOT invalidate the SE? It doesn't, and obviously Lucas has realised this, or elese there wouldn't be the 2006 release. I really don't care if Lucas changes the SE more, if he replaces Yoda with CGI and replaces Chewbacca with Jar Jar (hey, that wouldn't change the story, right? the character would have the same lines and story function but would allow Lucas to realise his "vision" beyond man-in-suit capabilities of 1977). Honestly, they are indeed films he financed and/or directed himself and it is his right to change them as he wishes; i don't think anyone has debated this. The problem is the repression of the OOT, the notion that it "doesn't exist", or i guess now "didn't exist" since he has finally acknowledged it. When Ridley Scott re-cut Alien in 2003, he included the theatrical edition because it was a valid and much-loved film in its own right; when James Cameron released Aliens in 2003, he included the theatrical cut in addition to his directors cut because it is a valid and much-loved film in its own right; when Coppola recut Apocalypse Now, it was released with both versions because the original is a monumental and superior film than the expanded version; the same dual-inclusion was benefitted the entire LOTR trilogy, Terminator 2, Gladiator, and Dawn of the Dead was released in a 2004 boxset with all FOUR different versions of the film intact. Star Wars is not some horribly botched effort that failed, that met poor box office and critical confusion--unlike, for example, Alexander. Star Wars changed the world of Hollywood more than Casablanca and Godfather combined, it was the most successful and popular motion picture EVER MADE. To deny the world this film and then claim it doesn't exist is completely absurd, asinine and ludicrous. Obviously Lucas was dissapointed with trhe technical limitations he faced--in fact he lamented these things in 1977. No director will ever be satisfied with their work--a truism asserted with the SE itself, which was redone in 2004!! But to repress that original groundbreaking 1977 film in a completely absurd and egotistical logical paradox about artistic right is just fucking dumb.

Which brings me to another point, and another dillemma that i keep raising. The point of the SE, at least initially, was to "correct" or enhance the technical limitations of the special effects that prevented the film in 1977 from achieving the scale and dynamism that Lucas was shooting for. But the problem is that you can't really undo the historical context with which a movie is made with. Sure, the SE has some interesting additions, but the special effects are not much more advanced--the new Battle of Yavin, while still interesting and more dynamic, still looks phony and CG-ish in the new scenes, and really sticks out with the CG aesthetic of 1997. Look at Jabba--he looked like complete shit at the time, a horrible, CGI botch that did not do anything to advance the story other than ruining the pacing, and the technical level of this "enhancement" was so poor that it had to be redone AGAIN in 2004, in a version that looks different but not any more realistic, nor does it have continuity with ROTJ or TPM. My point is this: The SE has all the aesthtic and limitations of 1997 CGI technology in the same way that Star Wars has all the aesthtic and limitations of 1977 technology and AOTC 2002 technology. You can always tell. The films we call "timeless"--Star Wars and Wizard of Oz being the best avatars of this label--are not truely timeless. Oz has the musical format, aesthtic and vernacular of a late 30's Hollywood production, and its technical limitations are often obvious. Star Wars too is fairly timeless but it has certain technical limitations and aesthtics that date it from the late 70's; Attack of the Clones has the same clues that date it to the turn of the millennium. My point is that at a certain point you have to step back and realise that films are a product of their era and you just have to accept this. Now instead of having 1977 FX, Star Wars has 1977 and 1997 FX that are equally dated looking. If the film was redone from scratch today, in 50 years you would have people going "this looks so 2007." It just happens. You will never get it "timeless," in the true sense of the word. Star Wars is a monumental piece of cinema that has a very important place in history as a film released in the late 70's--just deal with it. Nothing has stopped people from enjoying Gone With the Wind or Wizard of Oz just because the films are not "modern" or whatever.

And finally, the SE is not even about fixing technical mistakes. Its now about changing story. The first SE, the 1997 one, was truely about simply updatinbg and enhancing the films, a sort of fun experiment to try out new CG technology and bring a new audience to the films. But since the prequels were made, Lucas went off about the originals not existing and wanting only the I-VI "Tragedy of Darth Vader" being available, and then he started tying the prequels to the originals by adding Naboo and Hayden Christenson, among other things, to the originals. The 1977-1983 trilogy is a completely different series from the I-VI Tragedy of Darth Vader that was completed in 2005, and Lucas is acknowledging this by hammering the dividing line between "originals" and "prequels" into oblivion--the prequels are not backstory, they are simply story, the first half of the saga, and the prequels are now changing the originals. The SE is not only about the films looking better, they are different films and and different experiences unto themselves.


Look, no one is saying Lucas doesnt have a right to do this, they are his movies, but just as if Merrian C. Cooper replaced Kong with a CGI model, the world is understanable outraged and perplexed by the exclusion of the OOT. Fuck Cooper's right to change his own film, we all acknowledge that and its his right, but for fucks sake dont surpress the original, one of the most important works of art history in the category of film. What i cant believe is that there are so many idiotic Star Wars fans that are going along with Lucas' idiocy and not challenging him (and even being confused about why so many are upset).
Post
#273601
Topic
The best films seem to be the first of their genre.
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/273601/action/topic#273601
Time
The 80's was the most unoriginal decade in moviemaking history. It was the decade of the sequel, of the Hollywood filmmaking-by-committee target-audience-oriented filmmaking that paved the way for the current trend. It was the decade when the commercialisation of moviemaking was put into the foreground and producers replaced directors as creative heads. The 70's and late 60's was really the most revolutionary period of moviemaking in the US, the only really freely artistic period in Hollywood, until it was killed by the 1980's, and then resurrected with the indie scene of the mid 90's. Just to reorient your backwards history.

But yeah, a lot of great and classic films don't seem very striking anymore because their revolution has become convention. Films like Citizen Kane and Star Wars still entertain because their true power in pure storytelling but to watch Citizen Kane in 1941 or Star Wars in 1977 would be a shocking experience whose modern equivalents might be something along the lines of maybe Fight Club and The Matrix.
Post
#272543
Topic
What the fuck??? : George is definitely gone "bye bye"
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/272543/action/topic#272543
Time
Originally posted by: TheCassidyBy no means am I a blind, accepting fanboy, but enough is enough.

Who the hell do you guys think thought up the stories in the first place?

Who created the characters? The ships? The planets? The tech?

George Lucas created the Millenium Fucking Falcon, and that's cool. He created TaunTauns. That's cool. He created Jabba. That's cool. Carbonite? Lucas. Pod Races (arguable the best part of EPI)? Lucas. The Clone Battle in EPII? Lucas.

It's not that I don't recognize the issues with Lucas or his filmmaking, but it's become so en vogue to bash him by saying "Well, he didn't do Empire or Jedi so he must suck." I call bullshit.

Yeah, Kersh and Marquand were great directors, and they helped forge amazing films, but their role was to interpret the scripts, block the scenes, coax the actors (who, let's face the facts, didn't win any Oscars for them) and compose the shots. They didn't make or break Star Wars. They were along for the ride. A ride that Lucas created - lock, stock, and smoking barrel.

It's the internet whining and Expanded Universe marketing that is killing Star Wars, not Lucas.

EDIT - @ Marvolo - where are the poop jokes and slapstick in Star Wars - sorry, EPIV: A New Hope?


I disagree regarding ESB. It is Kershner's film. Lucas stepped away and Kershner made the film his way, something that has led to resemtment from Lucas to this day. Marquand was along for the ride, which is why ROTJ feels so "Lucas" like, but ESB bold discontinuity from the rest of the series has mostly to do with Kershner. The whole fucking lame "the directors are just interpreting my vision" train of thought did not occur until ROTJ because Lucas was so displeased with what Kershner did with ESB, so instead of letting a director play in the world created with ANH Lucas instead opted for dictatorial control and used Marquand as a puppet for himself. He was on set every day, selected camera angles, was a consultant, directed second unit and directed main unit and had the same kind of sway that executive producers do over directors in the world of television. This was not so on ESB, where he only visited the set two or three times and let Kershner do his thing. The whole "Kershner interpreted Lucas' vision" thing is bullshit LFL propaganda. Theres a reason why the film is so utterly different from any of the others.

I give Lucas enormous credit as a filmmaker for his work in the 1970's, one of the most important artists from the most important era of american filmmaking but ESB is not his film. To his credit, he is responsible for some bolder story decisions, namely the decision to end the film ambiguously and have Vader be Luke's father, but the film works because of the cinematographry, the mis-en-scene, the directorial atmosphere, and the way in which the characters are portrayed, things which Lucas had nothing to do with.
Post
#272511
Topic
What if the OOT was made Public Domain?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/272511/action/topic#272511
Time
The whole point of that little "they dont exist to me" stance of Lucas' wasn't that he didn't care, but that he very much did care, that is cared that they remain unavailable. Making them easily and freely accessible to everyone is the antithesis to Lucas' entire philosophy, especially when hundreds of companies will begin selling them, as happens in public domain fare (eg Night of the Living Dead, Three Stooges, etc., commonly seen in VHS>DVD transfers in the dollar bin). In order to properly present a film it takes a few grand investment in a decent transfer and often restoration work. The best case scenario is if a company like Criterion aquired the home video rights to it, but of course they charge about $50 per video because they always invest heavily into restoration.

Basically, making it public domain would hurt us in every way and benefit no one. What we do now (preserving, etc.) is generally accepted by legal standards even though we are technically making infractions, so legitimacy has never been a problem; none of us ever sells are stuff. Making it public domain would change nothing because the copies we distribute are ones transfered by Lucasfilm and Fox, and thus are their properties; just as Night of the Living Dead is public domain, you would still be sued for pirating Anchor Bay's DVD transfer of that film. In order to get around the legal angle you would have to obtain or purchase a print and transfer it yourself, which would be costly to start with and for sure it would need major restoration work done. Companies that do this professionally spends tens of thousands of dollars and hundreds of man hours getting this stuff right. Making it public domain would possibly allow a company willing to invest some cash to produce a pretty decent transfer that is an improvement over the GOUT but we would still have to pay money for it and would get sued for distributing this particular transfer. And all companies would be working with would be release prints anyway, no intermediate or o-neg's like Lucasfilm used for the SE and GOUT since those original material are still protected by the production company.
Post
#270426
Topic
Movie Making: Tools of the Trade (opinions from Mac Folks welcome)
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/270426/action/topic#270426
Time
Camera wise, it depends entirely on your budget. Professional DV cameras cost tens of thousands of dollars so obviously you aren't going near those, but "pro-sumer" miniDV cameras are will give you a relatively good image and the most bang for your buck; the Panasonic DVX100 is practically the standard for this, and if you are going this route i recommend this camera and this camera alone, and you can find it for about $3000 or so nowadays. If you are thinking camcorder style, ie under $1000, there are a bunch out there that i have seen some people using but i am not very knowledgable about these; some DV websites have good lists. You can probably find a used Sony PD-150 for under $1000, which is pretty good considering that this was the best in pro-sumer technology less than five years ago.
Post
#269723
Topic
The OT on HBO HD this month, unfortunately it is the SE
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/269723/action/topic#269723
Time
I agree that HD-DVD/BD will be the Laserdisk to DVD's VHS.

Also, think of it this way: HD-DVD, Blu-Ray should not be solely equated with HD. HD is really simply a resolution, while HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are simply commercial formats. Remember the early DVD titles? The original Blade Runner dvd for instance? They look like really good Laserdisk ports, which they pretty much were, similar to the way that early HD-DVD looks like really good DVD upconversions. Comparing the original Blade Runner disk to the new one speaks of the leaps a single format can make, and when you extrapolate that to HD-DVD and Bluray Disk, which are both only now in the last couple months even properly utilising the disk space and technological capabilities of their format, its easy to see how much the images can potentially grow.

Also, consider this: HD is a fairly new format. SD has been around for decades. These early HD broadcasts of the last few years are comparable to the early SD colour broadcasts of the early 60's--compare those fuzzy, horrible images to the crisp, clear images of, for example, digital satellite movies with 5.1 DD sound. HD is brand new. HD-DVD and Bluray-disk, then, are like VHS and Betamax. Comparing HD to Laserdisk is apt, but really its not, because Laserdisk was a pivotal development that basically bridged the gap between VHS/Betamax and DVD. So really, the next-gen formats, the post-HD-DVD/BD format, will be equivalent to Laserdisk, and then the format after that will be comparable to DVD. One can imagine how good the images will look by then. And they will be the same resolution as the HD broadcasts that ESPN uses. When you saw Revenge of the Sith projected digitally, its an HD source--this is the potential that the format has to offer. Right now we are dealing with primitive commerical formats, and the results are impressive but unsurprisingly crude considering. I might not ever own a Bluray player because i probably won't own an HD television set for a long time but it is exciting to think where the technology may one day lead--and there are even efforts underway to develop 2K home projection technology, which is astounding.
Post
#269718
Topic
The OT on HBO HD this month, unfortunately it is the SE
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/269718/action/topic#269718
Time
Originally posted by: CO
Zombie, I watched the ANH HD version on HBO today, and then popped in the 2004 ANH DVD, and you may have a better eye then me, so tell me if I am wrong, it wasn't THAT much better. I think HD is great, and 1080i is better then 720i, so I am not disputing HD is better, but if the OOT came out fully restored on DVD this year and looked exactly like the 2004 versions without all the SE crap, I would be satsfied forever. I know HD is the wave of the future, and I have an HDTV, so I see all the great programming it has, but I am just not that psyched of HD-DVD the way I was when DVD came out in 1997, cause DVD was such a leap from VHS and Laserdisk, it was so obvious the resolution difference when something was restored 16 x 9. HD-DVD will be better of course, but I am not itching for all my movies to be released like I was when DVD took off in the late 90's. What do you think?


Its true that the difference between DVD and current HD content (ie Bluray, HDDVD, etc.) is not the same leap that VHS to DVD was. That was a massive leap that probably will not be repeated again. VHS was a poor format from its birth, even by standard-definition standars, while DVD, despite being compressed, is among the higher SD formats. But there is a large difference in DVD and HD content, its just not the same leap that DVD was from VHS. VHS gave us the main detail, DVD gave us the fine detail, and HD is basically the super-fine detail, the stuff that many people do not appreciate or notice because its no immediately obvious in the same way that DVD was. Its a crisper, deeper image with better colour fidelity and more detail. But i agree that DVD is a fine format--i have almost 1000 DVD and the majority of those will not be re-purchased in any future formats; I'll be watching some of these when i am 80 I'm sure, that is if they haven't rotted away.

Anyway, in short, HD is not a jarring leap, but it is a leap. Many people didn't think DVD was all that great--"whats wrong with VHS?" was the main argument against upgrading. Well, nothing really, i mean we watched VHS for years and years and were fine. Its only when you watch DVD and then go back to VHS that you really notice the difference. Thats kind of how i feel with HD--at first you sort of think "its better but not the hyped up leap it is known as," and then you take a look at the same scene in DVD and you think "jeez, is DVD really this soft and fuzzy?"
Post
#269704
Topic
The OT on HBO HD this month, unfortunately it is the SE
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/269704/action/topic#269704
Time
Originally posted by: Fang Zei
LFL would have to somehow justify the 9/12 release in order for any remastered OOT release to seem logical, zombie. A good number of copies were sold of that release, yes? Even the people with HD tv's picked them up. They're going to be quite pissed when they find out an actual 16:9 transfer has been released, if that even happens. Lucas now has a choice between sticking behind his vision for "his" movies or giving into moneymaking. Maybe my mind just isn't open enough, but what I see happenning is a 6 disc saga boxset, unless LFL wants to go all out and please all of the fans, in that case they'll release it along with a pristine looking OOT. All I'm saying is that LFL releasing it the very year after they scammed us with the 9/12 release wouldn't make much sense to me.

LFL released the OT in 2004 because they wanted as many dvd players out there as possible. LFL released the OOT laserdisc onto dvd in 2006 because they didn't want to wait until there were a lot of widescreen tv's out there, they wanted to make an easy dollar.

As for the uphill battle, I can't say I really care about seeing the OOT in HD although I don't see why LFL wouldn't do an HD master before making a new dvd. No, that wouldn't stop them from holding back an HD release for years and years and years, but all any of us really wants is for it to at least look the best it can on regular ol' dvd.


They would justify the release as testing the water before doing a more "expensive" restoration project. As Lucas says, "now we'll see how many people want this." They know damn well how many want it, but i can see the press release--"due to the overwhelming success of the 2006 limited edition bonus disk edition, Lucasfilm is now undertaking a costly restoration to produce a new HD telecine in anamorphic widescreen!" Will they have scammed us? Yes. But they scammed us the moment that disk came out. Whether the OOT gets remastered next month, next year or next decade, the scam will remain unchanged. And the truth is that we will accept it. I'll admit that i will gladly pony up for a remastered edition of Star Wars, even though i bout the 2006 GOUT--and if it really pissed me off i wouldn't spend the money. LFL have shamed themselves a long time ago and really it can't get any worse so I'm beyond the point of shaking my head at them. Whether the boxset is the SE or the OOT, a new version of either or the previous versions of either, the box set is a sort of scam, by which i mean that things should have been done right the first time. The glaring video and audio problems of the 2004 OT-SE disk should never have been released, but it was, and then it was re-packed every year after that; the glaring video and audio problems of the OOT should have been released, but it was, and it might very well be again. Either way you look at it, LFL is guilty. With this in mind, the only significant market left for them is the remastered OOT. Who will buy the boxset? Only the hardest of hardcore fans. And those fans already have all the individual PT titles, the 2004 SE, plus the 2006 OOT, plus the Clone War cartoons. Theres very few things that they can add, and no new documentaries are being produced of significance--Mark Hammil, et all were called in for the 2004 release and it is doubtful that they will add anything more, nor has any news surfaced of such plannings. Basically, all there is left is maybe a few PT featurettes and the OT deleted scenes--but those are not at all enough to persuade any fan to buy the same movies, six no less, that he already owns, even if every film is updated in more special edition scenes. In order to make any cash on this thing it has to have the OOT remastered. That way, all the oldschool fans who just want a decent version of Star Wars will have to buy the boxset and get all this shit that they either already have or don't want--and most of us will. I certainly would, and i think most here would as well. Because really, the boxset basically amounts to simply the indvidual dvds that already exist re-packaged in a big cardboard case. $100 for that? I don't think so. The 2004 set appealed to the general public, but the 2007 set appeals only to fans. Without giving them what they want, it serves little purpose.

And of course, what better time to finally release it than the 30th anniversary, and LFL is already hyping up the OT vintage imagery. With Celebration IV targeted as a celebration of the original film and the new series, i can't thing of a better way to commemorate it with than by making the announcement there. This, to me, all seems inevitably and logical. But, like I said, LFL is so callous and illogical that i would be equally unsurprised if none of this happened, if it was just the same PT disks and 2004 OT disks in a $100 cardboard box.

Post
#269685
Topic
The OT on HBO HD this month, unfortunately it is the SE
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/269685/action/topic#269685
Time
Well, the HD OT-SE is to be expected. It has aired many times before this as well.

As for the OOT in any watchable version, i would say logic dictates that we will see it in the box set this year but its impossible to tell since Lucasfilm rarely follows the logical course of action. Even if it is put out in a remastered DVD, it will be a constant uphill battle because then we have to fight for the HD releaese, and thats the more important one IMO; every time this things comes out it "for the last time." It'll come out eventually, its just a question of when.
Post
#269566
Topic
its not true is it ? (re George writing the Prequels)
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/269566/action/topic#269566
Time
Around 1975 or 1976, he wrote down the character histories that exist mentally in every writers head. This resulted in a note collection of about "8 or 9 pages", in his words, which contained character sketches and background details, such as the formation of the empire and fall of the republic, the nature of the jedi, the broad history of people like obi wan and palpatine. Some of this found its way into the prologue of the novelisation in 1976, which, if you read, gives a pretty approximate parallel to the political-based plot of the PT.

So, in a sense, yes he sorta did, but in a larger sense, not really. He didn't plan it to be a series or ever shown on film, and it was vague and nothing special, the same background development that stems from any reasonably-complex story, and many of the pivotal prequel details (ie Darth Sidious, Anakin becoming Vader, Yoda, etc.) were absent and not added until ESB and ROTJ era.
Post
#269491
Topic
Recreational drug use
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/269491/action/topic#269491
Time
What you do with your own body is nobodys business but yours. I don't really have a problem with people do drugs, whether it be minor ones such as marijuana or heavier stuff like acid, so long as they control themselves; thats the problem with the more heavier stuff, you can easily loose control. Personally i have indulged in marijuana on a frequent and infrequent basis; i really have no idea why this stuff is still considered illegal, being no different than alcohal. Its always interesting to see how different regions treat it--when i lived in Vancouver it was smoked with the regularity and indifference of cigarrettes, and the police treated it more or less as such.
Post
#269392
Topic
"Archiving seminar reveals 'Star Wars' tidbit?" Another SE?!
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/269392/action/topic#269392
Time
Originally posted by: Fang Zei
What about this stuff from wookieepedia?:

# Mark Hamill's fall from Cloud City had to be re-shot after the film was damaged during processing.
# Mark Hamill did most of his own stunts in the film. The scene where Luke Skywalker falls from Cloud City onto the Millennium Falcon—which was later reshot due to film damage-caused an injury to Mark Hamill's wrist. Unfortunately, most of the footage—including Luke Skywalker's landing on the hull of the Millennium Falcon—was omitted from the final film.


Well, i guess the footage was indeed damaged then, but seeing as it was reshot, however, yet still omitted, its ultimate deletion from the film boils down to a pacing issue.
Post
#269335
Topic
"Archiving seminar reveals 'Star Wars' tidbit?" Another SE?!
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/269335/action/topic#269335
Time
The cloud city thing i think is just a pacing issue. There was a scene where Lando went outside, tethered himself to the Falcon, retrieved Luke and dragged him back in, but at that point the film is just moving at an incredible rate and it works really well to just have him fall, cut to Lando's voice saying "okay lets go" and then reveal him bringing Luke inside the hatch.

Anyway, as for Hume, while IMDB is user-based and often has inaccurate data, this whole thing is very strange--i mean, why would someone make up such a wild story? It has to come from somewhere. And it certainly is believable.
My first thought was what someone else said: that some of footage that was shot last indeed looks cheap--but then i realised the whole movie looks inconsistently cheap and glossy, depending on shot to shot. All the scenes in the throne room are lit horribly--partially due to the fact that it was an entirely black set that needed to be flooded with light to read detail--and most the shots are just kind of bland and rough. This is because Marquand said he wanted the rough, fastly-shot look of ANH, and Lucas wanted the shoot done as quickly as possible, so it was sort of guerrilla style, just do the minimum lighting, do a take and if you don't get it then move on. On the other hand, a scene like Luke's unmasking of Vader--which was directed by Lucas--is lit in an understated but appropriately dramatic way, and some of the Jabbas Palace stuff is interestingly done.
Post
#269320
Topic
Movie Help Needed
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/269320/action/topic#269320
Time
You might want to check out Amelie or Royal Tenenbaums if you haven't seen these films yet, or Three Kings. Dark City and Solaris make good companion pieces to Blade Runner and 2001 if you like those films. Also, if you enjoyed Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon then Hero makes an excellent follow-up, or for a more action-oriented version House of Flying Daggers. For character dramas of the highest quality check out anything by PT Anderson--Boogie Nights and his severly underrated debut, Hard Eight, are great but his best film is Punch Drunk Love IMO. And this is a star wars site, but i am always amazed at how few Star Wars fans have seen Lucas' previous masterpieces, THX 1138 and American Graffiti--if you haven't then do yourself a favor and check these out. Also while on the subject of Star Wars, if you haven't you might want to see the film that robbed it of its Oscar in 1977--Annie Hall.
Bio-pic wise i always have found Pollack to be very compelling. its like Raging Bull--with paint! Theres also John Cusak's very interesting film Max in which he plays Hitler as a young art student in Berlin. And while on the subject of art bio-pics i guess i should mention Girl with the Pearl Earring as a great yet quiet film. Frida makes a more eccentric film if you want something a bit more lively.

For weirder stuff i recommend Pi (well, its spelt with the mathematic symbol), Being John Malcovich, or Evil Dead 2 (a little gory but its ultimately a slapstick comedy); Tetsuo is good too if you can stomach it, and Bergman's Persona still impresses me with its abstractness.

Inconvenient Truth is also an excellent film that is sure to create discussion afterwards. If you like documentarys i also highly recommend Fog of War, and the recently released War Tapes is pretty interesting too.
Post
#269272
Topic
"Archiving seminar reveals 'Star Wars' tidbit?" Another SE?!
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/269272/action/topic#269272
Time
Originally posted by: Fang Zei
. Alan Hume's falling out with the producers of ROTJ is just one of many subjects that could be covered in any future doc.


I have always heard this spoken of but i have never even seen official evidence that this happened. I really do believe it, but the only references to this event are the blurb on his IMDB page, which may be reprised at wikipedia or something. Is this referenced or even confirmed by anyone with authority or is this purely in the realm of unconfirmed-internet-fact?
Post
#269105
Topic
Movie Help Needed
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/269105/action/topic#269105
Time
I am always amazed at how few people have seen Chungking Express, despite it being one of the most popular hong kong films ever made--such a delightfully powerful film. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is another that few have sadly seen. For something a little darker you might want to check out Coppola's powerhouse one-two punch of The Conversation and Apocalypse Now (theatrical version), films far more powerful and entertaining than that silly mafia soap opera he is also known for. Also, if you are in the mood for something animated The Iron Giant continues to be another ones of the unseen masterpieces. Really there is so much to recommend, it really boils down to mood and content. I try to refrain from overtly sad films if you are doing a marathon since it kind of leaves you feeling drained and unenergenic by the end. Also, seeing as Scorsese is all the rage now with his departed, you might want to check out the early 80's absurdist comedy-drama that saved him from the destruction that peers like Coppola, Friedkin and Lucas faced, his greatly undeerated After Hours.
Post
#268975
Topic
"Archiving seminar reveals 'Star Wars' tidbit?" Another SE?!
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/268975/action/topic#268975
Time
Well i really can't say this is shocking. Its something we suspected, and judging by the CGI Yoda footage in TPM, I'd say that the OT is not alone in the updating. Really, I don't much care anymore. Let Lucas do what he wants with the films as long as the originals are available. Thats all the opposition boils down to. In fact, I would be curious to see just how far Lucas would push the revisionism in the films, adding whole scenes and such, simply because its such an experimental and unprecedented feat--but of course, without a proper release of the OT, such an act would be criminal.

I am wondering how extensive these new changes are: are they just cleaning up some of the now-dated 1997 CGI the way they did for the 2004 SE (yeah, big success the SE is--you got rid of "dated" 1970's FX only to have dated 1990's FX, and now probably soon-to-be-dated 2007 FX)? Or will they be bigger, like the 2004 McDiarmid and Christenson footage? Without handy access to actors, and with a much smaller profit-margin for this boxset, and with a whole bunch of changes already done to the films i am guessing they will be more minor tweaks--lets hope correcting the lightsabers back to the "unfinfished" OOT colours is first on the list, instead of Darth Gayder with his pink saber.
Post
#268963
Topic
What versions of the SW saga do you own (OT, PT, preservations, etc)?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/268963/action/topic#268963
Time
If i printed out covers and got proper cases for all my preservation DVDs i would probably have quite a shelf or two filled with Star Wars related dvds.

As it stands, most of them are currently VHS copies:
1992 VHS of OT (individual, not the boxed set)
1995 VHS of OT (again, individual releases)
1997 VHS of SE fullscreen
1997 VHS of SE widescreen
1999 VHS of TPM bootleg
2000 VHS of TPM fullscreen
2000 VHS of TPM widescreen collectors boxset

and of course

2001 DVD of TPM
2002 DVD of AOTC
2005 DVD of ROTS
2004 DVD boxset of OT
plus, the 2006 GOUT DVD of Star Wars

preservation-wise, i have a set of Editdroid disks and Moth3r's NTSC conversion that i primarily use for watching, plus the 1977 VHS bootleg, and then all the documentaries, TV specials and fan-docs that have been released (basically all of them except for Special Edition Hype and the Episode I hype collection, mostly because i have most of them taped off TV already).