The Quest (1996). Kind of like Bloodsport meets Mortal Kombat with a bit of Charles Dickins or something thrown in. Not a particularly great movie but I have always had a soft spot for it. Haven't seen it since the 1990s. It was as good and as bad as I remembered it being. Not a huge Van Damme fan but this is one of his better films in my opinion.
thejediknighthusezni said:
zombie84 said:
...Meanwhile the theatrical cut of Kingdom of Heaven is pretty dull....
I appreciated the pace. It seemed to be purposeful. It immersed us in the rythm of the period. I can understand why others could think it was slow for an epic war film.
I knew that KOH would have a directors cut since it was announced so early. So I made one of the toughest movie decisions in my life and ignored the film for most of 2005, but it was okay because I had Revenge of the Sith to distract me. I consider the Directors Cut of Kingdom of Heaven to be the best historical epic since Lawrence of Arabia, and I mean that, it's easily one of the best films I have ever witnessed, so when I saw the theatrical cut on TV in 2008 I was horrified and offended. So I'm biased, I would probably be here defending it as a "solid but flawed film" in 2005 had I seen it in theaters, but Jesus is it basically two different movies. One is one of the best films I have ever seen and the other is....not bad.
I will admit, I am a Ridley Scott fanboy. He is by far--by far--my favourite director, and like I said, aside from Star Wars and ESB, I would say Alien and Blade Runner are my favourite films. But I'm also not blind, he has made some turkeys. I own every single film he has made, over two dozen of them, and stuff like White Squall is a piece of shit, 1492--which I have to watch on goddamn Laserdisc--isn't very good, and Hannibal and Black Hawk Down look nice but who can tell the characters apart? Meanwhile the theatrical cut of Kingdom of Heaven is pretty dull, and G.I. Jane isn't anything worth writing home about. He's my favourite filmmaker but he's far from perfect. So when I praise Prometheus, I'm not just saying that, it may be imperfect but so are some of his masterpieces like Legend and Blade Runner. To me, it's the best sci-fi film I have seen since Sunshine, and much better IMO. There is a lot of backlash right now, and fair enough. My own prediction is that it will be eventually seen akin to Blade Runner, but maybe I am wrong, but if I am then I would say it will be seen similar to Legend--some big problems, not the best film you will ever see, but god damn interesting and one of the most spectacular films around.
Not to drag this out any more, because fair enough if you feel that way. But when it comes out on DVD, give it one or two more viewings. Because I felt that the characters could have had more to do on first impression too. I'm beginning to sound like a broken record now, but that was also my first impression of Blade Runner. Yeah, Deckard and Rachel and Pris and Batty are nicely done, but honestly who the hell are any of the other characters? All good actors, but basically nothing there. But the more you re-watch, the more subtleties you pick up, and by the third or fourth viewing you find yourself actually enjoying Edward James Olmos, who--in my memory--comes across as a paper-thin glorified extra on first impression. But side characters like Chew and Gaff, you begin to understand them as characters, and Ridley Scott knew this because he lived with the film, but he made the mistake of forgetting that you only begin to see them in three-dimensions when you have seen the film as much as he had. That's why Blade Runner can sometimes make a bad first impression but become a major genre classic on repeat viewings. I had that experience myself, and I saw it in the 1990s too.
And I feel very, very similarly about Prometheus. Weyland, Fiefeld, minor characters like that, there actually is a lot more to them than may first seem, and characters like Vickers and Janeck are IMO possibly the best characters in the film but they do require more than one viewing to fully appreciate all that went into them. When you really start breaking it down, a lot of the "stupid" things in the film aren't as stupid as people say, but I can see why it may seem that way on first impression.
I realize this sounds like an excuse--just watch the film enough times and you'll begin to ignore the problems--but I don't believe it is any more than it is for Blade Runner. The characters in Prometheus are not as eye catching and memorable as Alien and Aliens, but I would put them on par with something like Blade Runner and Alien 3. Like those films, they may seem thin at first, especially since the visuals are so overwhelming, but there is a lot more going on than one viewing would reveal. So my advice, if you like the Alien franchise, is give the film a second or third viewing and just soak in all the details, because it's the details where Prometheus really shines.
Bingowings said:
The characters in Blade Runner have very little detail attached to them but what we do see rings true.
For me there is nothing in the film that I have to let pass.
The characters in Prometheus (David being the possible exception but some of his scenes are scuppered by the rest of the crew) make no sense but nonsense.
What I meant by comparing the creatures in this film to the alien life cycle is in the 1979 film they made narrative sense to be the way they were in that film.
In this film they are just less interesting stand-ins for we have already seen but they are only there because the actors need some object to respond to, there is no narrative requirement for them to be the way they are, they could have looked like anything and acted in any way.
The problem for me isn't that it isn't a straight Alien prequel (though with the current story elements that would make more sense) rather it's too much like a straight Alien prequel only with the alien replaced by something a bit like the things in the Alien films only not as interesting.
They should have gone with the straight Alien prequel or written a totally new film this is the same half way watered down mishmash that Alien 3 (Ward's space monks plus Twohy's prison planet) was and it's not even as good a film as that.
Like the PT it's full of implausible characters doing stupid things in a story that doesn't make sense.
This is true even if you try to ignore it's not an Alien prequel which is a hard task because everyone is going through such hoops to remind me it is one.
Bingowings said:
The characters in Blade Runner have very little detail attached to them but what we do see rings true.
For me there is nothing in the film that I have to let pass.
The characters in Prometheus (David being the possible exception but some of his scenes are scuppered by the rest of the crew) make no sense but nonsense.
Well, I can't say much when it comes to opinion. But for me there isn't much difference. Don't get me wrong--I agree that Blade Runner has better drawn characters overall. But in terms of the ones that matter--David, Vickers, Shaw, Janick, even Wayland--they are on equal ground. The side characters in Prometheus are more anonymous, in Blade Runner Gaff and Bryant are much more memorable, and behave more consistently, and I agree about Millburn treating the cobra alien like it's a cat when it's clearly behaving in a dangerous way; the writers built themselves a nice excuse, because he is high, but come on that's a bit much, I'm high right now and I would never do that. Overall though, I'm not necessarily trying to suggest Prometheus is a better film, but the difference is much less pronounced than you are making it out to be. The core cast is on equal grounds, and since the background players--Millburn and Fiefeld excepted--are pretty anonymous anyway, the core cast amounts to 95% of the performances in the film. But I do agree that Blade Runner overall has better acting, I just think it is only so by a little bit and not some unacceptable chasm as you propose.
What I meant by comparing the creatures in this film to the alien life cycle is in the 1979 film they made narrative sense to be the way they were in that film.
In this film they are just less interesting stand-ins for we have already seen but they are only there because the actors need some object to respond to, there is no narrative requirement for them to be the way they are, they could have looked like anything and acted in any way.
The problem for me isn't that it isn't a straight Alien prequel (though with the current story elements that would make more sense) rather it's too much like a straight Alien prequel only with the alien replaced by something a bit like the things in the Alien films only not as interesting.
They should have gone with the straight Alien prequel or written a totally new film this is the same half way watered down mishmash that Alien 3 (Ward's space monks plus Twohy's prison planet) was and it's not even as good a film as that.
Like the PT it's full of implausible characters doing stupid things in a story that doesn't make sense.
This is true even if you try to ignore it's not an Alien prequel which is a hard task because everyone is going through such hoops to remind me it is one.
I was going to respond to most of your specific points, but I think I can do it in a more general sense. And that is, that most of your arguments here--at least as they apply to the design--are pretty much the same thing as I said before, they are prejudiced because it's not the Alien Zero you keep being reminded of. And that's fair enough, it's pretty understandable, as I said one of the biggest things about the film is that it's not an Alien prequel yet it still sort of is, only it isn't, only it is. So do you judge it in context of an Alien prequel, or not, or let some things slide but not others? It's a very peculiar film in this sense, and it's hard to frame, because criticism must depend on context. I fucking love the Godzilla films, but of course they are terribly made, but they get away with all of that because they are Godzilla films. But this is what I realized with Promtheus, and I guess this is hard for people to accept, and I don't hold that against them. Prometheus is not an Alien prequel. It's not the same type of film, and there is pretty scant evidence outside of Weyland to even suggest it is in the same universe, so if you like Alien you won't necessarily like this. But it's really not like Alien, other than borrowing design concepts. Should Battlestar Galactica be held to be consistent with Star Wars, as it rips off everything and has the same effects crew? But at least Battlestar is in a similar vein, but Prometheus is closer in spirit to Blade Runner than Alien.
So, basically, at the end of the day, I asked myself: "would I rather have a Ridley Scott original sci-fi film that based it's design and some of it's concepts off Alien, or the same thing without any influence of Alien"? And my conclusion was that yes, I would like an original Ridley Scott film that re-uses ideas and imagery hinted at in Alien. Because I fucking love Alien, Alien is my favourite film other than Star Wars, and I believe, whatever it is they could come up with, whatever alternative designs and deliberately-different ideas--they would be worse. They would not be as good as Alien. So I would rather have an original film that revisits some of the concepts and touches upon or includes some of the same visuals and designs as that film. Because I wouldn't want a prequel, but at the same time I kind of am curious where Scott would take things. And I think Scott has the same feeling. So, to me, it was the best of both worlds. I loved the film, then was confused about the film once I thought deeply about it, and then I loved the film even more for the more unconventional hybrid path it took. I understand why that throws people, because for a moment it did to me too, but IMO once you don't have that "is it or isn't it?" question in your head the film is very, very well made, a few big flaws aside. You say it's not about your prejudice as to whether it's Alien or not, yet most of your argument and closing statements are complaints about how it was visually cluing you in to being an Alien prequel but then not following up. As I said, I don't fault you for this, but I still do think that many of your hangups with the film come from it's unconventional pseudo-sequel nature.
He also has more than one print.
I'm not saying that, I'm just responding to your specific criticism that the alien lifecyle we got doesn't work because it's not the alien life cycle you wanted. Don't confuse the two.
From where I'm standing the film works just fine as a film. As I said, it doesn't have anything missing that couldn't be said about Blade Runner. And like Blade Runner, it would be in some way nicer if the characters were more realistic and relateable like they were in Alien, I miss Parker and Brett, just like I miss their equivalents being absent from Blade Runner. But, like Blade Runner, it's not the same kind of movie as Alien and works fine without that element being there as strongly. It has other goals in mind.
Also, this isn't like comparing the PT to OT. Those are a continuous saga, and one is a direct prequel to the other. This is not a direct prequel, nor part of a saga, and barely classifies as even taking place in the same universe as Alien, which was the point I was making about expectations. As I said, take it for what it is, and not what you wished it was. You'll find a very original and stimulating movie is in there underneath all the confusing "is it or isn't it?" Alien connections.
Once you get over that confusion and just accept the film on its own terms you don't have to worry about whether it works as an Alien film because it doesn't have to, it's not Alien Zero it's just Prometheus. And I think once you cease having that backlash about it not working as Alien Zero you won't be harsh on the film compared to other movies where you would let the same sort of things pass (again, Blade Runner being a great example).
To each their own. The original script sounds pretty bullocks to me. I'm very happy with the film we ended up getting.
The life cycle shown in the film may serve no "purpose", but then what purpose would any life cycle serve? To show us the alien lifecycle? Either way it exists to exist. That's not really an argument against what we got, other than you preferred more Alien tie-ins. As the film isn't set on LV426, doesn't contain the ship or specimens seen in Alien or any other film in the series, and actually modifies many of the ones that appear similar, this isn't much an Alien prequel, and I guess that is why so many Alien fanboys have so many hangups with the film. Just enjoy it for what it is.
Personally, I'm glad they didn't tie it in with Alien as much. It makes for a more unpredictable and therefore more interesting story.
The UFO design may not be as cool as a Giger inspired one, but there is enough Giger in the film as it is so it's not like we are missing anything, and the UFO shape is very much that way on purpose. Plus, it is only two shots of about four seconds each....
To me it looks like a split between the old and new is appropriate. Old was a bit too warm, new is definitiely a bit too cold. The Alderaan pic has a few tiny artifacts because of the video source but I would say it actually looks more pleasing because of the massive amount of detail added. Again though this is pretty subjective. Either way is an improvement on the GOUT.
I pretty much know where a good portion of all IB prints in the world are, including the one screened, because they are all owned by the same individual, who has been collecting them the last while. I think this person has three or four by now. Apparently the Senator print was in rougher shape than first thought in terms of small scratches.
I would say if anything the saturation and contrast can be boosted a bit more but as bkev noted, the GOUT has hideous red levels, and these need to be tone down but only a bit. The biggest problem with the GOUT, aside from the detail--I recommend a mild sharpening filter, btw, since the GOUT has a bit more detail than the DVD shows as long as no artifacts are created--is the damn reds. They tend to bleed all over the place and be disproportionally represented, and they need to be dialed back here only only very slightly.
I think it was Leethoroughgood who made a Technicolor recreation about a year ago, it looked very good, and so does this.
This is all pretty subjective. My own opinion is add a tad of sharpness, add a little bit more saturation, and try to rein in the reds a bit more. The only problem with that, I guess, is that the greens already are starting to become a bit prominent. But a good first attempt in my opinion, and for sure an improvement. I think for an adjustment like this you are pretty much in the ballpark of a nice looking image and it's really just a matter of preference aside from a tiny bit of red level control.
Haha that is awesome, congrats Harmy! :)
Hey ATM! I'd for sure have some things to say about all of this. Good finds btw! Maybe in a couple days though, a bit pre-occupied with other things. Forget trying to get good discussion at TFN these days, I think most posters with anything of substance to say only go there once in a while unfortunately.
Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:
Actually, I was impressed by the fair number of responses on TFN that were more moderate, and even some expressing our views. It's probably just as easy for us to assume that they are all raving mad (because of a few loud idiots) as it is for them to think that we all subscribe to the "r..... my childhood" view.
Maybe the place has gotten better since I stopped paying attention around 2008 or so...every time I check it out though I see the same thing, and nothing interesting regardless. I guess, to be fair, that you could never replicate the discussion quality post-prequel as you could when they were coming out, but even in the classic trilogy forums things seem a bit dull these days. I think part of the problem is that the real hardcore SW fans--the first and second generation OT fans--are too old now. They don't post. If you were 25 in 2002, you'd be at least 35 now, and likely have a career, a mortgage, two kids, and god knows what other problems, so you aren't online talking about Star Wars issues. Instead, it is the people born in the 1990s, which, to take nothing away from them, just isn't the same.
I think I have the same amount of racing games just for the 2600 that is on that entire list. Why would someone even make a list if they only know of three racing games existing in the 1990s? Must have been a ten year old.
To a certain extent, some of these people say those kinds of thingsv to convince themselves. CO has famously told a story from back in the day at TFN--and this is how insanely partisan, party-line-towing some people are--that he pretended to be a prequel fan and in private messages some of the harshest prequel apologist would tell what they REALLY felt. And guys like Cryogenic actually admitted, in writing, that they agreed the prequels weren't the greatest but felt a duty to defend it because it was Star Wars.
That happened to me too. Not to single out this guy again, but Cryogenic LOVED Secret History of Star Wars when it first came out, LOVED IT, he called it a masterpiece and had all sorts of positive hyperbole for it, and even helped me rewrite certain things. He appreciated that it put the films in new context and thought it was historically interesting to "pull back the curtain" even if it meant going against the official party line, and praised it to high heaven. Then he found out--or thought, I should say, since I am really not--a "basher." His tune changed. My arguments, which he was defending and reinforcing, were suddenly invalid, the book was a smear campaign, my opinions had all kinds of fallacies and I was a cancer to the fandom. NOTHING IN THE BOOK HAD CHANGED. THE TEXT REMAINED 100% THE SAME. It was the same text he was praising the week before. Later on I did make nips and tucks, but at the time--literally--other than his suggestions which I took mostly, nothing had changed. But what had changed was his perception of me. Thinking I was "one of them", I was now the enemy, and everything I said was cynical bullshit bringing down the fandom. Things that I would say that in the past he would see as constructive or merited were now further proof that I was just a basher looking to slander George Lucas. I think he felt like he had a personal vendetta against me because he felt "tricked", because he said some pretty nasty personal things that were entirely unmerited--and also ignored by the mods, predictably.
That has happened to me before and since, but this is the best and most specific example.
Not everyone over there is like that, but some of the harshest and most famous of them are, and more are probably truely like that than you would think. They don't even believe in some of the stuff they say, and they base their opinions on essentially partisan politics, regardless of the content and context of what the other person is saying. They are the real Star Wars Tea Party if there ever was one. I don't know why someone who is an adult would spend so much time online doing that though, I guess they have nothing else to do. We are at least spending time on constructive things and things we love.
What do you expect from TFN. That is characteristic of them there, and the reason I no longer make it a habit of posting. The only people left there are youngsters who were born after or right before the SE came out (an 18 year old would be born in 1994 remember) and so don't care/know about the OOT, fans who literally are just ignorant so they don't see what the problem is or care, and Lucas/new-star-wars apologists who will do whatever Lucas says and love him for it.
The first two groups you will find anywhere, that's nothing new, you even occassionally get them here. Star Wars has always thrived on a young fanbase, and not everyone older is an expert about things we take for granted. But you may notice that they seem to be disproportionately represented at TFN. And that applies to the last group, the "Lucas fanboys" or whatever you want to call them. And they are all over that place. In fact, they run parts of it. And the reason these three groups are so highly represented there is because that is largely all that is left. People like BaronLando left. People like me left. And the moderates either learned to be quiet about certain issues or they went some place else too--in fact, I did and still do consider myself a moderate. This was not all by accident, Lucasfilm is the de-facto controlling entity behind much of TFN and has been for a long time. Lucasfilm closed their forums years ago because the TFN forums had long ago become the substitute, and the website is now a sort of unofficial subsidiary of Lucasfilm. And so the forum was moderated the way the official forum would be, and as the number of anti-OOT, pro-prequel, pro-SE, pro-whatever-Lucas-says members continued to grow exponentially through the marginalization of everyone not like that, they dominated the membership there more and more, which only gave them the ability to marginalize others even more.
Some of this was even more direct than just through consequence like that. A great many were banned, or threatened with it. In 2003 or so it was already so bad that they had to create a "Basher's Sanctuary" thread for critics who wanted to discuss things critically or bitch about things without have to face any consequences or get shouted down. Then even that thread was closed in 2006 or so, and a lot of people there were directly and indirectly driven away.
But the consequence of these two things is that they took the good discussion with them. Even posters there today sometimes complain about the lack of substance and the "good old days." A lot of the more intelligent posters stopped coming back--or were banned--and the ones that stayed behind got bored or else had few people to talk to.
So, take away all that and what do you have left? Casual fans, apologists, undercover Lucasfilm employees, and people who come there to read about crap like Disneyland Star Wars Days and the latest prequel action figures.
Sadly, it's one of the biggest SW boards around, but it's been so manipulated that it doesn't in any way represent the real Star Wars fanbase, only the parts of it that Lucasfilm has approved of. If you go almost anywhere else, whether its IGN or imdb or whathaveyou, you still have those kinds of people, but they exist in much smaller proportional numbers. I miss the old TFN, it had some major flaws and needed to be less fanboy-oriented, but there was a lot of good discussion to be had. I started posting there when I was just 13 years old in 1998, and so I actually have grown up with it, now that I am almost 30. And now look at what it's become. And it's been that way for a long, long time now.
I'm not trying to endorse piracy here, but the retail DVD is now out online. I'll be buying the most deluxe version of the release they offer, but I wanted to take a better look at the film on video, and it also has 50% of the deleted scenes, plus one more that was leaked online. Some of the deleted scenes are useless, but some of them are quite good, including an incredible scene between Vickers and Weyland that should have never, never been trimmed down and is easily the best performance scene in the entire film. Not included in the leak, but available in part form elsewhere is an extension of the scene where Weyland meets the Engineer, and the Engineer speaks...and we find out what it was David asked him. The engineer's reply is still not explained in the clip online, but we do find out that David said to the Engineer that Weyland wanted to live forever. I'm glad to see Idris Elba as Janeck gets a couple of really nice extended scenes, as I felt he was the most underrated character in the film. Like Gaff in Blade Runner, he grows on you the more you get the chance to study his performance, he portrays a fairly solidly developed character if you acttually take notice of him. The deleted scenes also answer a few lingering questions, like perhaps what the engineers were running from in the video recording. There's a ton of visual clues you can pick up on when watching the film again in this quality. Waiting patiently until October when I can see this in HD and get all the extras.
I'm not. I like KOTCS and I never owned it on BD. I recently saw an HD broadcast of it and it looked amazing.
You'd have way more complainers if it was missing. Why would they leave it out of a box set of the series? It shouldn't drive up the price and you can always sell it or give it to someone who likes the film.
I have to say, TOD looks incredible from the shots I've seen so far. Very natural, very similar to prints and former video transfers, and it just looks stunning with the detail and everything. This is actually my favourite film of the bunch, so even if I have a few minor issues with Raiders, TOD looks as close to flawless as I could have hoped for.
Heck, shipping is the easy part. I mean, who cares if you have to spend $300 dollars on a freight train shipment. The harder part is how you transport a 1-tonne wooden crate meauring over six feet tall into your home? You literally need a forklift, and at least a cube van, and then a second forklift to bring it into your home. That's how they installed these in the arcades. And that's assuming it's all in working order too. On top of the $2000 you already spent.
The Dave and Busters near me has the SW Trilogy Arcade bench-seat model, so I figure dropping $2 a month there is better than the god-awful expense and headache of actually trying to buy, ship and install one of these in my home. It would simply be impossible. And forget it if there is even a single stair. These jumbo deluxe versions are simply unfit for residential use, unfortunately.
I recently had to pass on a NEO GEO MVS cabinet with two games for only $350. The cab needed some superficial repair, and two of the buttons were broken but it was apparently in working order otherwise. Unfortunately, I don't have the space, or really the ability to travel 50 miles to pick it up. Shame. Some friends of mine were going to build our own but it would have been awesome to get a real one. I would love to get into collecting arcade boards, but you really have to know a little bit about electronic/electrical engineering to do a lot of the little wiring/circuit repairs that pop up so often, or else spend a lot of money on pristine boards.
In my opinion, it looks like the reality is in between. The film has definitely been brightened to have more midrange, probably just due to the overall yellow-shift bringing detail out in the shadows that was previously less visible because of the former blue-shift, as blue eats up detail and yellow reveals it. Many examples in the pics look much more natural on the blu-ray, like some of classroom scenes. Many of the Cairo scenes are yellower and look nice, while the older version is a bit blue-shifted and may have just been a choice on the part of the colorist or even Spielberg, as the difference is subtle without the side-by-side comparison, it would be hard to notice if you were just watching the film. However, it seems clear to me that the DVD also has instances that are likely to be truer to how the film originally looked. If the sky is visible and the scene looks natural in the older timing it would suprising if it was actually originally supposed to be blown out and with a less natural overall look to the colour and contrast. The shots from the opening as well seem more natural with the bluer and more low-key look seen on the DVD. That shot digging up the well of souls looks like it has had the saturation pumped up, but that shot was a matte composite which dilutes the colours, so the blu-ray may actually be closer to how the elements were original shot and meant to be seen as. Sadly, the prints I've seen have always been a bit pink-shifted so it's a tough call, and I can't remember details that specific just from memory. If someone had a print that could be examined in detail you could probably tell even if there was fading going on.
I'm curious what you thought/think of Speaker for the Dead? To me, it's always been the odd-book-out, although I've only read about half of the series. It always struck me as the Empire Strikes Back to Ender's Game's Star Wars, in terms of being a very different style and content/setting/etc. Books like Xenocide and Ender's Shadow didn't surprise me as much stylistically.
Also, have you read any of Card's non-Ender books? I picked up Lost Boys years ago, it's very, very different from what I would expect from Card.