logo Sign In

zombie84

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

Post History

Post
#261987
Topic
Hey guys, Remember when Star wars had writing like this?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/261987/action/topic#261987
Time
Go-Mer your basic stance seems to be "these are the movies we got so we might as well enjoy them." In other words, "lets all lower are standards rather than be unhappy." This perhaps is a moving example of the utterly irrationally emotional investment and love that certain fans have for the saga, and i think thats a testament to the power of the OT. However, i refuse to lower my standards simply because a film is below average. There are plenty of better films and filmmakers out there that ensure that the standard of quality can be maintained at an acceptable level. Its basically like a dissapointed parent saying, "well my son turned out to be a delinquent, but he's the only son i have so might as well love him." Except, unlike a parent, we had no part in the creating of the PT, nor do we have any hope of undoing or altering the films for the better. Perhaps Lucas can love his own flawed creation, much the same way a father can still love his flawed son, but to ask strangers to have the same level of sympathy is inappropriate.
Post
#261764
Topic
Hey guys, Remember when Star wars had writing like this?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/261764/action/topic#261764
Time
I don't think the PT failed strictly because of the turn. Personally i felt that the emotional angle of Anakin's turn-- an obsession to save a loved one from death which results in him selling his soul to protect Padme, only to have this very act kill her and thus leave him transformed into a monster--is the most brilliant stroke that Lucas came up with since he made Vader and Father Skywalker the same person in 1978. Yeah, the youngling slaughter right afterwards doesn't fit in at all, but overall i though the emotional motivation behind Anakin in Episode III--or at least for most of the film, since the consistency breaks down near the end--was the most compelling and believable part of the entire trilogy. But whether you thought the turn worked, failed, or sorta worked (i am in this category), the PT's fundamental flaws are entirely different--no six-film series could possibly be "ruined" by a mere sequence in one entry. The problem with the PT is that the films were simply poorly made right from the get-go. The writing ranged from acceptable to laughable, the performances were generally not believable, the plotting was ponderous and inconsistent, the directing embarassingly amaturish in most respects, and a lot of the action scenes not very exciting. The cumulative effect of all these things is that the characters were utterly hollow. I just didn't connect to or care about the characters because of all of these factors. Watching Anakin's fireplace love pledge in AOTC for example, or any scene between Obi Wan and him from that film, all i can do is laugh at how bad everything is done. TPM sorta got by because it came off as a self-contained fantasy picture that was light and not too important in the scheme of things, but once we get to the actual story in AOTC this superficiality simply cannot stand. The films were just shittily made, and ROTS didn't have much of a chance because of it. Personally i feel that the first forty or fifty minutes of ROTS is quite an impressive feat in that it partially succeeds in not only making the characters somewhat believable, if only in a minimal way, but that it almost undoes the damage inflicted by the previous films. Personally i find that ROTS works the strongest without the previous two films--you don't know that Anakin was a whiney baby, that Padme is a hollow robot, that Obi Wan and Anakin came off as hating each other, that Anakin and Palpatine had a non-existant relationship, that there was a complete lack of romance between Padme and Anakin, that the jedi were chumps, and that the films were overall dull and uninteresting. With all these things weighing it down, it is suprising that ROTS works in any way.
These same flaws are the same things that also ruin ROTS--inconsistent characters and characterisation, weak dialog and unintelligent plotting; these manifests themselves in the turn scene. Luckily, they were balanced out the first dose of suspence, interesting story development and compelling characterisation that the prequel films had seen, such that many people thought the film worked in spite of the flaws. The first half of ROTS was well done to such an extent that when the film finally returned to the inconsistent levels seen in AOTC it was all the more jarring, especially in the climax where it alternated back forth between them with rapid pace (Anakin and Obi Wan fighting on Mustafar--cool; Emperor becoming a cartoon character--what the hell?; Anakin burning and being rebuilt as Vader--cool; Padme loosing the will to live--what the hell?).
Post
#261656
Topic
Hey guys, Remember when Star wars had writing like this?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/261656/action/topic#261656
Time
"Hollow"?? This, the most poignant scene in the film, is "hollow"? My friend, perhaps you do not remember a time before the year 2005, but this scene was touching and emotional without the benefit of the prequels. Its touching because here is a monster, an evil man, who turns to good to save his son whom still believed in him.

Furthermore--how the fuck does the PT suddenly add emotion to a "hollow" scene? What we learn in the PT--the particulars of his downfall--have almost no bearing on the ROTJ scene. The ROTJ redemption is powerful because its an evil man brought to goodness by his sons suffering--learning how he turned to evil in the first place (he wanted to save his wife from visions of death) does not really add anything to the specific scene, nor transform it from "hollow" to "emotional". We know that Vader was once a good man named Anakin who was a heroic Jedi and turned bad--we don't need to know anything more to make the scene work. In fact we don't even need to know this--the scene works because its a man who was the villain sacrificing himself in the name of good.

This is just a fucking stupid argument Go-mer.
Post
#261529
Topic
Hey guys, Remember when Star wars had writing like this?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/261529/action/topic#261529
Time
This is a bit of a dumb argument to me. I think the Jedi, in all their teaching on the Sith, would obviously learn of the rule of two--they are obviously aware of it, as the only way that the audience is even informed of it is when Yoda talks of it. So obviously Anakin would have known of it.

The real question is: how the fuck do the jedi know of it?? The sith have been hiding for a millenia using this very technique--but then out of the blue Yoda knows about it. What the?? Sloppy writing! This is where the real story flaw lies and the answer is simply that its a plot hole.

The previous debate is merely a by-product of OT versus PT/Saga--ESB was not designed with any rule of two in mind, but with the retroactive changes made by the PT revelation of a "rule of two" existing, ESB can be re-evaluated with this interpretation in mind, if so desired.
Post
#261500
Topic
my memory isn't that bad, is it? (in SW '77 - Luke misses with the grappling hook?)
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/261500/action/topic#261500
Time
I think that personal correspondance from Foster is a great piece of evidence--thanks for writing to him!

The thing is that kids memories can do crazy things. Children re-interpret, mis-interpret and inaccurately remember things. I remember thinking that when Luke shoots the stormtrooper on the chasm and he goes "oooh" and falls off the ledge that it was Han going "Luke! Nooo" because Luke accidentally shot him in disguise. In fact, TFN has a 50+ page thread about stuff like that, i think called "Things is Star Wars that you misunderstood as a Child" or something similar to that.
The fact that Foster admits he made it up is enough to totally discredit all these claims. Are we to believe that Foster invented something out of his own mind in order to add dramatic tension something that wasn't in the original version of the film but then was completely coincidentally found in an obscure TV version to be exactly the way Foster wrote it? Foster is saying he made it up, so for Lucas to film something, delete it and then add it in only for a once-in-a-lifetime TV broadcast and have it coincidentally be exactly the same as the way Foster invented it from his mind is too much of a coincidence to ignore.

Furthermore, the wildly different accounts of this scene indicate that its just childhood memories. Some say that Leia kissed Luke to inspire him after missing, some say that he just threw it before, some say it was a rare 1977 print, some say it was an obscure 80's TV broadcast. This goes hand in hand with people who claim "i remember seeing footage of Leia spitting on Vader," "I remember seeing the Biggs footage," "I remember Luke missing the rope," "I remember Luke accidentally shooting the controls,"--and in ever single one of thse, every single one from every single claim, the excuse is always "oh, but i haven't seen the tape that it was on for about two decades now--if only i still had it!" Gee, what a surprise.
Post
#261462
Topic
"Back and to the left"
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/261462/action/topic#261462
Time
I wish i could say i knew more about the subject, as it has always intrigued me. The passing information i had learned over the years basically repeated the various arguments about the impossibility of the bullet to inflict as much damage as was done, and that always seemed like a pretty decent argument to me, though i never really looked into the matter. I am glad to see, however, a more rationalist take on the matter that debunks conspiracy theories, which i am always suspicious of. A very persuasive documentary. It is however, too a bit too brief to truely make a definitive exploration of the matter, but then i suppose there are longer shows that have been made on the subject--now i am wanting to take a look at them. It still strikes me as a bit difficult to determine the seating positions of the car passengers to the specific degrees needed to make a scientific examination of the physics of the bullet when you consider that all we have are 8mm footage that is not very detailed, though i suppose the car is photographed from enough angles throughout the incident to get some manageable data. Question: how many angles is the shot documented from? I had always thought it was the single, distant angle of film, but the video provides a really detailed close-up of the angle that would pretty much be impossible to get from an 8mm blow-up of the wide angle.
Post
#261198
Topic
Hey guys, Remember when Star wars had writing like this?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/261198/action/topic#261198
Time
actually, if you didn't know that Darth was Luke's father and you watched the new version of the scene, there STILL isn't anything that makes it explicit. The only difference is instead of "son of skywalker" its "the offspring of anakin skywalker". The dialog in this scene is the most confounding change in the SE for me because it really changes nothing, other than making the name "anakin" present.
Post
#261099
Topic
ANH screening with modelmaker Lorne Peterson...WHY ARE THEY SCREENING THE SE??
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/261099/action/topic#261099
Time
Randy its true that every single optical effect was recomposited digitally in 1997. They did this to eliminate matte lines and dupe grain. They accomplished it by digging up the original bluescreen elements and plates, scanning both and then re-comping them. Its even detailed in the recent "what has changed" feature on the official site. Every single special effect has been digitally altered.
Post
#260927
Topic
Hey guys, Remember when Star wars had writing like this?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260927/action/topic#260927
Time
Originally posted by: Guy Caballero
And yet, American Graffiti is loaded with great performances, by young, unproven actors! Wha' happened?


He had good actors in a story that was realistic and natural and that the actors could relate to and play with. Lucas did absolutely no direction actor-wise on the film, instead relying on a well-written script that was spruced up by Gloria Katz and Willard Huyck and that was very real because it was based off his adolescence, and instead filmed the movie documentary-style by pointing the camera at the actors from a distance and letting them improvise. A dialog coach was hired for any actor directing while Lucas supervised Haskel Wexler and the camera-related matters. Basically, American Graffitti was made in such a way that the performances came out natural. Lucas wasn't an idiot either--he knew he couldn't direct actors so he just let the actors go through the scenes on their own, and this plan was successful because the movie took place in a fairly modern time and with scenes and dialog that any 17 year old actor could relate to and realistically deliver. Lucas was even famous for using only the takes in which the actors made mistakes--lending their performances that awkward, unscripted natural quality that the film is famous for.

If you look at American Graffiti and Attack of the Clones you would never know that they were written and directed by the same man--the difference is that Lucas' lack of direction was perfectly suited for the contemporary comedy-drama but not at all for a melodramatic space tragedy.
Post
#260817
Topic
my memory isn't that bad, is it? (in SW '77 - Luke misses with the grappling hook?)
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260817/action/topic#260817
Time
Originally posted by: SKot
Originally posted by: Wesyeed
oh come on. I saw it with my own eyes, twice when it aired on tv.

It's a common thing. Superman when broadcast on tv had deleted scenes and stuff put back in to extend its length for whatever reason. Maybe it's the same with star wars... I don't know. But this is no urban legend... someone out there must have this on tape.
The thing is, numerous people have copies of Star Wars taped off the air from when it was broadcast at various times in various parts of the world. Many of us have watched them, specifically looking for different shots like this. And it's NOT IN THERE. Not one single person has found a copy that has a missed grappling hook shot in it. Not ever to this day. If that was shown, *twice* even, when it aired on TV... we would have found it on one of the taped copies. It's not there.

Now, I'm willing to admit the possibility that some alternate footage may have been aired during some weird one-off TV special that may not have resurfaced yet. But I'm doubtful even of that. I too have a vague recollection of Luke missing with the grappling hook, but I know it is from my reading the novel before I even saw the film. You guys who think you saw it with your own eyes... overwhelming evidence to the contrary says no. I think your mind is playing tricks on you.

Again, 50 bucks to the first person to present real, hard evidence of the missed grappling hook shot. All I hear still is talk!

--SKot



Thank you, oh voice of reason. How many star wars fans are there on the web? Well over a hundred thousand. At least fifty percent of those are involved in communities and digging up collectibles and whatnot, even just in passing, and if there is a piece of star wars footage aired or some collectable released, you can be damn sure that about fifty different people can post hard copy evidence and information about such a thing. This grappling hook thing is bogus--i don't doubt a genuine memory of it, but twenty five year old vague childhood memories are not relyable sources. In fact, just yesterday i saw a thread started by some younger fan at TF.N stating that he swore he remembered an alternate ending to TPM where they battles Maul over a river of lava or something and was wondering if anyone else saw it. Mulitple people have also posted about remembering Leia spitting on Vader in the torture chamber and of course there is the infamous case where hundreds all agreed that the Biggs footage was edited into an early 80's TV broadcast. And all of these people's so-called "memories" agreed with each other, people who had never even met. Its not uncommon. But every peice of Star Wars footage that was ever aired has been identified, analysed and posted in hard copy from multiple sources.

I am suspecting that these "rope missing" memories may stem from a behind-the-scenes program. The chasm sequence was heavily documented by the documentary crew on set and i've seen lots of footage from the making of that sequence--and i am sure when Mark Hamill had to throw the rope, he missed. Likely he had to throw it to a stage hand off camera, or a mark on the floor a few yards away--and its also likely that they may have even filmed a few takes in succession, having mark thrown, pull it back in, throw again, et cetera, to give some variations in the takes. I am guessing that a clip which may include or indicate this type of scenario is what is the impetus for all these false memories of it be included in the 1977 cut, or some obscure or unobscure TV broadcast.
Post
#260816
Topic
ANH screening with modelmaker Lorne Peterson...WHY ARE THEY SCREENING THE SE??
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260816/action/topic#260816
Time
Lucas freely admitted circa 1979 that the primary purpose of the Star Wars sequels was to finance Skywalker Ranch and Lucasfilm. In fact, he talked about this openly and frequently, i guess because at that time he was a hailed auteur and had no need to hide any pretentiousness. Now however, with all the criticism he has recieved since, he has to pretend its for some glorious artistic statement, this whole "Tragedy of Darth Vader" thing, with an equally self-inflated title like that. Of course there is a high degree of sincerity in the prequels--there can't not be, given all the time and effort spent on it. But even now, Lucas still admits that one of the reasons he returned to Star Wars in 1994 was to re-claim the position of wealth--the wealth of the OT--that had been snatched away from him after his 1983 divorce.

"Then i decided one of the reasons i would go back to the star wars films [the prequels] was that they would make me financially secure," Lucas said to Charlie Rose in 2004. As for being detached, he is indeed, but i don't think at all to the degree his critics surmise. To be sure, he does indeed enjoy making the prequels and put all of his genuine effort into it, but he still works as a businessman and has the detached demeanor of a producer or executive, both of which are his primary roles in Lucasfilm and on the prequel films themselves. Thus, he is equally concerned with efficiency, cost-savings and getting stuff "good enough," as opposed to "good," which was the reason for the split between Kershner and Lucas and between Kurtz and Lucas. Now, with the prequels there is no one to keep him in check--the films are very efficiently and cheapl made, amazingly so, but the quality is kind of "meh," because theres no one there to give the artistic side the same amount of emphasis--and no one talented enough, for that matter.
Post
#260566
Topic
Hey guys, Remember when Star wars had writing like this?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260566/action/topic#260566
Time
If you read any interview with Lucas from 1973-1980 he says how much he hates directing. Then if you read any interview from 1981-1985 he says that doesn't hate directing, he just finds himself in a position to produce. Then if you read any interview from 1986-1993 he says how much he wants to return to directing. Even though he finds the actual on-set production to be not so stimulating, he had indeed be itching to direct, and in many many interviews from the mid and late 90's he says that he loved returning to directing. Even in April 1999, when he spoke to the Star Wars Insider before TPM even came out he says that he had already decided to direct the next two films because as soon as started filming TPM he realised how much he enjoyed it. Thats also why he directed some of Young Indy in 1992 and 1993, because he wanted to direct but only if he could enjoy it and in both examples are a well organised, low-stress product.

As for his "I may have gone too far," he's talking about the overall wildness of TPM--the characters, the editing and the effects. His only solution, since everything has already been shot, is to simply re-edit it to lessen the pace and relief some of it. This is best revealed in a meeting with McCallum that takes place shortly after: "I've done it more extremely than i've done it in the past and the film is designed to be that way so you can't undo that. But we can lessen the effect of it [through editing]. I mean if its intense for us a regular person is going to go nuts."
Post
#260562
Topic
Hey guys, Remember when Star wars had writing like this?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260562/action/topic#260562
Time
Even in 1983? Those kind of issues are still fought today. Those restrictions exist for a very specific reason, and its to ensure that key artist are credited upfront--kind of ego-centric if you think about it, but the whole concept of screen credit is somewhat ego-centric, and not unreasonable. Coppola i may not have belonged to the DGA at the time he made Godfather, though i could be mistaken. I think the DGA's main beef with Lucas was that he broke a fairly substantial rule for such a major motion picture, and the artists who gave him all his wealth were not properly credited according to union regulations. Back in 1977 head credits were a big deal--in fact, at that time it wasn't uncommon for films to have all the credits at the head. This in fact is how films were initially made--all of the credits that you see nowadays at the end of the film appeared at the beginning, and once the actual story of the film ended it simply faded to black with a copyright symbol instead of the lengthy scrolling credits at the end like today. In the 70's, the head credits first began to be truncated, and you had a long head credit sequence that usually credit the major artists and then at the end you had a more exhaustive sequence. Today this rule is much looser, and most films have only a brief opening credit sequence compared to the pre-1980's films-- i guess this is an effect of the so-called MTV generation, refusing to sit through three minutes of credits and instead wanting immediate action, and so the credits are almost all saved for the end. Its not so much a big deal now, although there still are still issues with films that omit opening credits completely, but in 1977 it was very radical.
Post
#260556
Topic
my memory isn't that bad, is it? (in SW '77 - Luke misses with the grappling hook?)
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260556/action/topic#260556
Time
None of these exist you guys. There has never been any extended or alternate ANH edits--to do so would require going back to the negative and re-striking a new edited IP. None of these things are in the script, in stills, in any sort of official source of movie deletions or the lengthy deleted scenes lists that even the official site has exhaustedly chronicled, and all people have is vague memories--just like years ago people by the hundred swore they saw the biggs footage on TV. But they never did. They just invented a memory. It happens when you are dealing with childhood memories from decades ago that involve hundreds of other multimedia sources that influence them like the many novels and storybooks. The version of Star Wars released on the 2006 GOUT DVD is the only version of Star Wars that ever existed until the SE, with the exception of the 1981 crawl.
Post
#260554
Topic
Hey guys, Remember when Star wars had writing like this?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260554/action/topic#260554
Time
I don't really buy into the whole "deleting crew/actors from the films is disrespectful" argument. Cast and Crew are fleeting in screen credit--how many crew members that worked on the films that didn't recieve credit? Daily camera assistants and camera operators, electrics and grips and art P.A.'s--hundreds of people dont have screen credit because screen credit is not given to everyone. Similarly, your work is subject to end up on the cutting room floor at a moments notice--i've shot dozens of scenes where all my hard work and the countless manhours of dozens of people has been rendered nill by its deletion from the show. Its not disrespectful, its just the way movies are made. In this case, with the edit of the film still evolving 20 years later, a few more people got cut out of the film (while adding a slew of more technitions and thespians). Its just the nature of the business.

As for Marquand, his being british had nothing to do with guild trouble--theres plenty of american directors who aren't part of the DGA, for example Irvin Kershner. Kershner didn't want to do ROTJ anyway because he resented Lucas and Lucas never asked him because he resented Kirshner. Lucas was forced to use non-union directors because he chose to not comply with union rules by including head credits, which really is not an unreasonable demand from the union. Of course, they socked it to him with a ridiculous fine (i guess because they felt that Lucas had made so much money without proper credit sequence to the cast and crew who made it all possible--again, probably bad for the film but really not too unreasonable a dispute from the union's perspective, whose job is to protect its workers with things like proper credit).

Lucas planned on only directing TPM but then he just enjoyed working on it. He decided to direct the other two even before TPM was released, so its not an ego thing--he kept talking about how he wanted to return to directing and then he finally did because he realised how much fun it was now that he had no financial or technological pressure on him.
Post
#260329
Topic
Hey guys, Remember when Star wars had writing like this?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260329/action/topic#260329
Time
I don't doubt that the perseverance of ANH as "the first Star Wars film" will remain---BUT, if i am a 15 year old kid in 2030 looking at a six-episode series that is known as a continuing saga, i am going to pop in the episode labelled Episode I, even if i am well aware that the last three were filmed first. It would just be stupid for a new viewer to assume a different order of viewing, and most new viewers will not have hordes of oldschool fans to convince them to watch the episodes in a backwards order. Even if i had heard that some fans preferred to watch the films in shooting order and not episode order, i would still still default to episode order out of the natural assumption that the story will progress most comprehensibly from this viewing.

But this is all based on the assumptions of the prequels being treated on equal ground with the OT, which is what Lucas is trying to do for precisely the above reason. But i don't think this will happen. I think the PT will be so ignored that "the star wars series" will continue to remain as simply the OT, and that many future fans will hear about the films as a really good trilogy from 1977-1983 that also has some prequel films made for it that suck. That seems to be the road that things are heading. The only thing preventing them from completely going down such a route is that fact that Lucas seems very adament that the films only be viewed and, in the future, packaged and marketed as the six episode Saga--precisely because this is the only way that people would continue to view the prequels. They have to be forced.
Post
#259856
Topic
stupid question about the OOT DVD's
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/259856/action/topic#259856
Time
Originally posted by: Darth_Evil
What's funny about that, IMO, Lucas seems to have treated the OOT on DVD with more respect than the SE. He let them crop the SE and mangle the picture ot fit a 4 by 3 display, but the OOT has not been released on DVD in fullscreen. It's kind of funny...


only because the 1993 DC telecine was letterbox only and they couldn't be bothered to spend the money to make a 4x3 extraction (aside from the fact that it wouldn't be watchable--and you think the letterbox image was dodgy!)
Post
#259731
Topic
stupid question about the OOT DVD's
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/259731/action/topic#259731
Time
One possibility is that the OOT disks on ebay are not the officially released versions.

The other possibility is that it is the pan and scan version of the SE. The official OOT sets come in two versions: widescreen and pan and scan--but these formats refer to disk 1, the SE. If you buy the SE in pan and scan, disk 2, the OOT, is still widescreen because that is the only version of that particular telecine that is available.
Post
#259468
Topic
Left-Handed Explanation for accents in the PT
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/259468/action/topic#259468
Time
A simpler one is that: aliens are exotic creatures with accents. Humans are not. In the OT, we mostly see humans, while in the PT we see many aliens. Hence the PT has lots of accents. All the aliens in the OT--Yoda, Bib Fortuna, Greedo, Jabba, etc--have accents of some kind, they just arent plentiful in number as in the PT.
Now, how to account for the fact that the Empire developed its own internal British accent is another thing...