zombie84

Many movies from the 1950s are available on Blu-ray, so only an idiot would think that a Youtube video uploaded to 320 resolution reflects the state of technology of that time. Youtube only introduced 480p resolution around 2007, and HD resolution was only introduced around 2009. "What they didn't have high definition in 2008?"

When Wizard of Oz was restored, a movie from the 1930s, let alone 50s, they scanned the negatives at 8K resolution in order to get all the quality. I don't think theaters to this day show anything better than 4K, and to find a 4K theater is itself still kind of rare.

I'm pretty sure the slave owning southern elite sending young men fighting to the bloody death to defend their right to hold a human being as property are the bad guys of the American Civil War, and not simply guys with "a different point of view."

I liked the direction Lucas was going with the "point of view" angle regarding the Sith in the prequels, but the problem is that it doesn't work, and could never work. The OT is a classic good versus evil story full of moral absolutism, and however the Sith were portrayed in the prequels, in the end The Emperor/Empire is not much more than a typical Evil Organziation that you find in many sci-fi/fantasy works. They want power, and they don't mind doing bad things to get it. Plus they may do bad things for little practical purpose.

Speaking of comics, does anyone remember the Boba Fett comic series from the mid/late 1990s? I think it was around 1997. It was aimed at mature audiences and was pretty good. I bought the first few issues but I don't think it lasted long.

Ray Park didn't do the fight choreography, Nick Gillard did, and he continued in the following two films.

Captain Panaka dude wanted too much money to come back. This is what I remember TFN reporting back in the day. The Star Wars films have never operated like normal films would--where a returning actor likely would be paid more. So they wrote him out and replaced him with a character that is...his brother or something? I forget what the explanation was. But he looks and acts similar, except he isn't the same guy, technically.

Interesting story about David Prowse. The story I've heard is simply that he gave away a couple seemingly harmless tidbits, but he wasn't even supposed to be doing that. He does have an ego and is also a bit self-promotional, and I guess he just got on Lucas' bad side.

Personally though--what's the point of all the secrecy when you release the novelization of every single Star Wars film in April? People who want to know all the secrets will have been given them by Lucasfilm 6 weeks before the films open.

The original Star Trek and Star Wars are both live-action science fiction adventure, sometimes involving space battle and aliens and other planets, with humor and big personalities, but the comparison ends there, really. In 1977 though, there wasn't anything else that had those elements, unless you went back to Forbidden Planet and Flash Gordon, but those were things that only our grandparents could really remember, if they were even aware of them. And thus was the basis for the SW vs ST debate. But it's only because for so long, these were the only science fiction adventure stories involving occassional space battle and aliens that was within living memory. That context faded away decades ago, but the legacy lives on. But they aren't really any similar beyond those superficial elements--now staples--any more than 2001 and Star Wars is.

Since this is opinion, the shocking answer is that there is no answer. Any more than why an orange is better than an apple. Personally, I love both oranges AND apples, and would find it silly to chose one over the other when I can easily enjoy both.

:p

Anchorhead: Ever seen the Tales of the Jedi series? It was published by Dark Horse in 1993. The Old Republic era, before it was canonized. Maybe you won't like it, but it was and especially now is even moreso, very interesting. A glimpse at what writers thought the Jedi/Sith wars were like in the early 1990s. Worth a skim through, in my opinion.

Ewan McGregor has always been pretty upfront that he thought the prequels weren't as good as the originals. He's gotten in trouble a couple times because of this.

Terrence Stamp bashed Episode I. It seems he expected to actually be acting, instead of reciting lines to a wooden post in a blue screen stage.

Liam Neeson was so upset after the preview of Episode I he ranted that he was giving up acting forever because he couldn't stand the crappy movies he was being put in (that year, he was in both The Haunting AND Episode I). He later reconsidered.

Hayden Christensen has been very diplomatic, but he's said that he didn't get the script for Episode II until the week before filming and he was really worried that he wouldn't be able to make it believable. According to a less reported anecdote--but highly believable one--his reaction to a friend was "I'm fucked." And he was.

Interesting that Daniels would have negatives views. In mean, understable, and he's always had a sort of "complicated" love/hate relationship with the series, but I hadn't heard him be completely honest before.

A good nominee would be Conan The Barbarian. There really is no perfect version, but some might prefer the DVDs because of their cuts.

The first DVD: 1982 theatrical cut. But very poor picture quality, no extras, bad print.

The second DVD: A new directors cut, with better picture and audio, and tons of extras. But no theatrical version and picture quality still leaves some to be desired.

Blu-ray: A third version, which incorporates a few bits from the old directors cut. Extras are pretty good, but the picture quality is not the best example of Blu-ray technology.

The Blu-ray is my preferred version because of the picture quality but it's the cut I like the least. I'm still not sure why they took out the best scene from the DVD directors cut (Conan and Sabotoi making sticks on the beach) but left the boring ending which kills the crescendo. For this reason I sometimes wish I could watch the theatrical cut, but the quality of that first DVD is pretty bad.

Was hoping the Blu-ray could finally have both versions and make everyone happy but instead it made things even more complicated.

The problem isn't that they took the job, it's their performance on the job that is the problem. None of them ever saw a script anyway, they signed blind, and I think that is a huge part of how they got so many talented actors to accept underwritten parts. "Star Wars? Sure, everyone LOVES those movies, they're classics, this will be my big break!"

The Kingdom of Heaven BD may lack the overture and intermission, but the picture quality makes up for it. The only reason the DVD had those interludes was because the DVD format itself made them split the film into two discs. Without that restriction, there is no need. Although I do enjoy the break. But I would never say that the DVD is better, simply because of the superior audio and video of the BD.

The Star Trek movies don't bother me, as the "directors cuts" were created for DVD anyway. Leave out the theatrical cut and the disc sucks, include the theatrical cut and the disc still sucks. It's true that they could have included both, but this is how the DVDs were anyway, with each cut it's own release--and the Blu-rays, despite some DVR, are way better than the 1990s DVDs which came out so early in the format. Like the DVDs, there will likely be expanded-cuts versions which have better picture due to later release.

Also, the quality difference between Blu-ray--1920x1080-- and 2K is about 10% anyway.  That 1920 is only 80 pixels away from being 2000, which is what the 2K in 2K stands for. But in either case the quality varies, so it depends on the case. You can upscale a VHS to two thousand pixels (2K) but obviously it will look like shit. So some blu-rays could potentially be better than some 2K presentations. The Blu-ray projection of Evangelion 2.0 that I saw certainly looked way better than the digital projection of Inception that I saw a year earlier, which at best was 2K and at worst was the same resolution.

I think it's inevitable that the sheer existance of the EU will do that. The more you expand and fill in the blanks, the less there is to imagine. I think, in some alternate universe, it would be awesome if there was no EU, no games, books, comics, no nothing, just the films--and what kind of crazy discussions we would be having. Everyone would have their own take on what the SW universe was like. For those who remember before the prequels: what the heck was the Clone Wars? No one knew, but we all kind of had our own version of it. I miss that. But, on the other hand if there was no EU I wouldn't have stuff like Rebel Assault II or Heir to the Empire or the SW Radio Drama, so it's a mixed bag.

Wait, my bad it was at the Cinesphere at Ontario Place. Still cool though!

This is an aside but I saw Jurassic Park at the Ontario Science Centre in 1993, which was amazing. Wish I could have seen Star Wars footage on that.

The prequels had a stellar cast. Really. It's hard to think of a franchise with more gifted actors who were famous before the trilogy was made. In fact, I don't think there is such a series. Maybe the Chris Nolan Batman films but that's about it.

-Ewan McGregor

-Liam Neeson

-Hayden Christensen (was known as "the next big thing" around 2000 when cast)

-Natalie Portman

-Christopher Lee

-Jimmy Smits

-Terrence Stamp

-Samuel L Jackson

Plus you had the fantastic but unknown to Americans Pernilla August, Ian McDiarmid who people didn't realize was as good an actor as he was, and also that girl from Whale Rider is in there. You even have Sofia Coppola and Kiera Knightly in the mix! And Temurra Morrison, who was a big deal in the indie scene.

And wouldn't you know--most of them stink. The casting director--Robin Gurland I think--did an amazing job. Directors would kill to have a cast like that at their command. You could have made the best-acted fantasy film ever made with a cast like that. Instead, almost of all them go down the toilet.

When I was in film school, we had to take acting lessons as part of our directing exercises. And one of the things we learned about was what is known as "self-directing." This can be a problem for some directors, which is why we were learning about it, because sometimes a cast member will just ignore your direction and make their own choices. Well, this is also a skill that actors can use to get themselves out of trouble when your director doesn't know what he or she is doing--and, like real directing, it's an acquired skill that takes years of experience to do well.

No surprise that all the older actors faired pretty well. Christopher Lee and Ian McDiarmid are old enough to direct themselves when George Lucas just stands there and says "read these crappy lines faster and more intense." But the younger cast--they have no clue. They just do the work and listen to what George says, because they trust him and don't know how to direct themselves. So, if you look at the prequels, it's mainly the over-40-years-old actors  that managed to turn in something not too embarassing.

This is going to seem weird but Anchorhead this is the theater you saw Star Wars at:

Woah, I didn't know that existed! Have to see if I can get me that.

When I went to the limited theatrical screening of Evangelion 2.0 they were projecting from the import Blu-ray and it looked fantastic. I was very surprised to learn afterwards it was just from a disc, but I would say yes, it is possible for Blu-rays to hold up on the big screen. Most 35mm prints you've seen in the past have the same or less resolution anyway.

Not knowing about the above discussion, I agree with you guys. The book is long-winded, and thats the most consistent complaint people have, and I agree, so that's my focus for the second edition.

However, it really did perplex me that IGN thought I was being hard on Lucas. Really? Really? I thought I painted a very human portrait of him. If you want to see me being hard on him, that's about as gushing a portrayal as I think I am capable of. The review did have a heading "in defense of Episode I", which I already thought I did an honest job of defending as much as is reasonable, so I guess that's the crowd you are dealing with. But whatever, no such thing as bad publicity as they say.

I did come here to announce that Save Star Wars officially has a Facebook page. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Save-Star-Wars/353462731392141

I at first considered sharing Mielr's similar page but this is just easier.

evan1975 said:

  I think the prequels showed people what bad Star Wars really was.

I think that, more than anything, has helped Hamill and Fisher.

Whenever people diss Hamill I always ask "have you seen Empire Strikes Back"? He practically carries the film, and the majority of his screentime is spent interacting with a literal rubber puppet. The guy gave nearly an Oscar worthy performance and he only has about three scenes where he is face to face acting with another recognizable human being. And I'm not even making that up! -One scene with Ford and Fisher in the hospital -one tiny scene with Dak getting into the speeder for about five seconds -a small bit when he is rescued on the Falcon -and then a reaction scene at the very end of the film.

Everything else is either done over radio, with masked characters, with puppets, or just reaction shots.

Hamill is like Caesar Romero, a classic, manic Joker, but one that would not translate well to a serious live-action film. He would be a better fit than Romero, who was a product of his time to some degree, but I can't see him playing the role outside of animation where you can get away with an over the top performance like that. Because even Jack Nicholson had some subtlty, and he was a much better actor in the first place (not to diss Hamill--I love the guy).

What exactly did you have in mind?

That's pretty cool.

They get permission from the photographer usually, or whomever owns the copyrights. There are a lot of photo archives you can have access to for a fee for use for stuff like this and magazines.

I'm looking to put up ads or anything, I'm just wondering if I can improve the site with a bit of graphics, maybe make a new banner or something.