zombie84

And yet Batman and Robin grossed over $100 million. In truth, Batman and Robin killed it in reputation only. For such a bad movie, thats quite a lot of money. Clone Wars will be financially successful and children will like it, just like a lot of little kids genuinely enjoyed the Schumaker film because they just want to see Batman doing stuff onscreen. I honestly can't see any difference between Clone War and Batman and Robin; even if you defend that Clone Wars is more obviously kid-friendly thats not apt because the marketing isn't advertising it that way, LFL is hyping it up as a teen-oriented "serious" take on the thing. Whats the difference? Warners wanted some dignity. They could do a lower budgeted Batman and Robin 2 and make a few more bucks or they could quit while they were ahead. Lucas is currently envisioning a six-season arc for Clone Wars with possible more feature-film sequels in that time.

It wasn't just AICN that posted a negative one, Variety and Hollywood Reporter gave it bad reviews as well. No doubt if the reviews were good, the embargo would not have happened. Its very rare that a studio enforces this--especially when critics had been INVITED to the early screening.

Sunday--you make a good point about live-action vs animation for the humor. I think the main thing is that this is a film obviously designed for ten year olds--bad slapstick and kiddie humor is part of the genre. As far as box office, I doubt this will crack the $50 million mark; it'll do $35 million opening weekend, and then really quickly taper off to at least half of that in week two and by week four it'll be gone from the weekly top 10. This movie won't get the repeat business from Star Wars fans, aside from opening weekend it'll be 90% kids. It doesn't really matter though--I estimate the budget for this film at about $10 million. It'll be the most profitable film of the summer.

I believe this is the quote you are referring to. I made this for use as my sig a while ago. I got the quote from The Making of ROTJ paperback.

Yes, it is true. There was 1 person in Germany, 3 in the US (one from michigan and 2 in california I believe), 2 from Canada and one from Japan. It was very sad. There was talk of prosecuting George Lucas for manslaughter but I guess his crack team of lawyers took care of it. We can only hope that when The Clone Wars animated film comes out we don't have a repeat scenario.

Erikstormtrooper said:

As far as the OOT, I don't think we'll get a respectable version of that for a few years. I suspect that the main reason we got the GOUT was to kill the OOT bootlegs. Since there are currently no high-quality DVD or HD versions of the OOT, there's nothing for George to compete with, nothing that's making him look bad. When we do get that (probably in the next couple of years), then an official version of the OOT will come our way in Blu-Ray.

 I have a feeling this is probably the most realistic theory right now.

The movie's origins are somewhat arbitrary. Lucas screens all the footage in a private theater and said "this looks nice on the big screen, everyone should see it this way." So they initially took a multi-episode storyline and strung the episodes together. But as the project went along they expanded sections and added scenes to make it cohere a little better as a "feature film." Seeing as each episode has a pricetag of a million dollars or so, this thing probably costs less than ten million. There are at least forty or fifty million dollars worth of kids and fanboys out there, so from Warner brothers' point-of-view that means "cha-ching!"

Negative-1,

what you are forgetting is that in 1977 a ticket cost $2. In 1999, a ticket cost $10. So when TPM makes $100, that means 10 people saw it. When Star Wars makes $100, that means 50 people saw it.

Also, most people under the age of 30 today never saw it in theaters; they were born too late. Star Wars was a huge film on video--it was the first VHS to make a million dollars in rentals. It was also one of the top rated films when it came to HBO. In 1995, the VHS "faces" set sold nine million units in its first week; many of the people buying them (ie kids under 18 years old) were not alive when the film was theatrically released. And since then, the SE grossed $138 million theatrically, made almost as much on video, and then the SE DVD set was one of the best selling DVDs of all time when it came out.

So, please don't pull numbers out of your ass without keeping them in context. Very few people actually saw the prequels--it was mostly kids and fanboys. Everyone saw Star Wars; it was like when Titanic came out. Grandmas and children were going to the theater. But Star Wars is also the greatest film in terms of historical survival because so many young people from the second generation saw it that when it was released in 1997 it still to this day holds the record for biggest January opening.

I thought that WAS how he did them.

Kids will see it. Its just summer candy for the kiddies, nothing new in Lucas-land and not necessarily a bad thing either; god knows Droids, Ewoks, and the two live-action movies aren't exactly pinnacles of the cinema. You just have to treat it with the bat of eye and move on. Unless you are under 10 years old--then, its probably something to get excited about.

Jeez, I remember the pre-1999 one was just one volume. I guess the EU has been in overdrive since then.

I'd go for a 5-disk Star Wars set, and then a 4-disk set of ESB and ROTJ, without any SE nonesense--save the SE stuff for the 6-film boxset, because the SE really is only relevant to the prequels.

Star Wars:

disk 1: Digitally restored version sourced from 8k scans of the O-neg (of course color-timed from the best surviving color source, the Technicolor masters). 1981 Crawl optional via seamless branching as a bonus. Audio options: original mono, stereo and a 5.1 mix from the 70mm.

disk 2: New 3-hour documentary just on the making of ANH.

disk 3: Featurettes and mini-documentaries on various topics, plus deleted scenes

disk 4: Archive: Vintage documentaries, interviews, trailers, commercials, etc

disk 5: The Lost Cut. A new 4K transfer of the black and white workprint cut, with commentary track by the editing team.

The set would come with a hardcover book of black and white photographs from the production, a reproduction of the lobby cards, a reproduction of the theatrical souvinir magazine, and a reproduction of a ticket to the premiere. A pared-down 2-disk set could be made for the average consumer.

The ESB/ROTJ sets would basically follow the same format but without the workprint disk. For the boxset I'd include a bonus disk with additional material and a remastered transfer of The Holiday Special.

With the Saga boxset, there would then be maybe additional documentary disks dealing with the 6-film series as a whole, and then each OT film would get an SE disk that would link up with the PT packaging (maybe in some kind of book-like design) with the latest incarnation of the SE, with the previous 2 versions available via seamless branching. A bonus disk would feature SE documentaries, including a feature-length one detailing the alteration of the saga starting in 1981, the origins of the anniversary theatrical re-release, the 1993-1995 restoration effort, the work that went into the 1997 SE, the media and fan reaction, and then the continued revision throughout 2004 and whenever the new one comes out. The prequels would all get new HD transfers from their digital masters, with selectable "bluescreen only" version on the BR release, and a 2-disk documentary set about the making of the trilogy.

Johnboy3434 said:

CO said:

So please don't say there were flaws in the OOT when it comes to effects because there wasn't one complaint from fans from 1977-1996.

 

Actually, I wasn't talking about aesthetic changes like those made to Cloud City. I was referring to matte lines and such.

By your logic anyone that DOESN'T wish for films to be altered decades after their release is a fanboy. I wouldn't want Wizard of Oz updated; or Lawrence of Arabia (CGI camels!! Its "better"!!); or Metropolis. Or Star Wars. Its a film made in 1977--of course the effects do not hold up to today! Duh! Does that mean they are "flawed"? In the sense that they do not compare to todays, yes, but seeing as these films are not madde today this is a logical fallacy--you are asserting films are flawed simply based on the virtue of their being made prior to today.

I don't think anyone disagreed these "flaws" existed--clearly, the matte lines are visible. Its not a question of opinion; they are there. No one ever pretended these technological limitations didn't exist, there simply is no need to update it in the first place. Its like people who can't watch any film made before 1990, or anything in black and white--its not "up to date". No shit. Movies are products of their time. Either watch them or don't.

In answer to the original posters question:

From a certain point of view (god, I can never use that expression and be treated seriously) the 1995 THX set might be percieved as altered--its color timing. Even though every release looked a bit different because each release is individually color-timed, the 1995 release seemd to point to deliberate artistic changes which would later be confirmed in the SE. For instance, the scene where R2 gets zapped in the canyon was originally fairly brightly exposed, but on the THX it is dim, much darker than any telecine prior, as if it is much later in the day--on the SE, it would be digitally re-timed to be sunset. Another example is Hoth--though it may be argued that this was not the first release to introduce blue emphasis on Hoth, the intensity here far outwieghs everything that came before it; as originally photographed Hoth is fairly neutral looking, but here the scenes all have a heavy blue shift to them. In the SE this would be emphasized more and in the 2004 SE pushed to the extreme.

Because its old news.

We came we saw we bashed we moved on. Seriously though that was like three years ago and theres only so many times you can make the same point and have everyone go "yeah I agree."

You can find that Lucas quote here:

http://www.obsessedwithfilm.com/specials/how-the-grinch-stole-star-wars.php

The EOD crawl is from a different source and is of noticeably poorer quality; the stars barely even register. And its also interlaced.

FOUR thousands dollars though???? I can understand $400. I can even understand $800. But $4000??? Even if there is some moron rich enough to spend that, its absolutely disgusting that LFL is charging this much, considering these cost about $100 to make. Trust me, there will be plenty available, and they WILL go down in price because theres probably only a few people on the planet, let alone 1500, stupid enough to drop that much cash on a book of video-stills.

Remember when we said "yeah Lucasfilm will probably charge $200 for this", and we laughed and laughed?

Well no fucking joke--this coffin costs FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS!

http://www.sideshowtoy.com/?page_id=4489&sku=900184

It isn't just re-writing history--to me the models and older effects are consistent with the look and feel of the films. You know, kind of down to earth, gritty, low tech, dated and definitely not of the 21st century ("timeless" as they be), etc. Maybe it would fit in if the new effects were photorealistic--that might actually work, because then the entire film would be like it was all just a documentary. The only shot that even comes close to this feel is that widely-seen 180 degree pan following the X-wings approaching the Death Star. But the CG just looks like CG. Why replace the models if you're only going to replace it with something thats equally fake--and not only equally fake, but way inconsistent? Even when the odd model shot looked dated it still fit in with the ambiance of the film, a quality that the additions do not have, its like splicing video game footage into Lawrence of Arabia.

So, to me, even the best part of the SE--enhancing the older effects--does not work, thus there is no reason to watch the SE except to see what this fun little experiment was in 1997 to try to put modern effects into an old movie for a special anniversary celebration. Because thats all the SE really is.

With regards to the above point, I agree.

At the same time, its significant that the photo is Old George Lucas. I think we all love George Lucas, but we love who he was, not who he now is. I think Young George Lucas should be cast in a magnificent golden statue with toga-clad maidens pracing around underneath it throwing flower pedals into the air. And I think Old George Lucas deserves the monument displayed in the first post.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0P4MvlLsia4&NR=1

This chick gives Natalie Portman a run for her money.

ESPECIALLY the holiday special.

:p

Come on, Jefferson Starship kicks fucking ass.

I think the host just wanted to give equal voice to all three speakers, which is fair. The Digital Bits guy tended to dominate since he had the most sensible things to say, so undue attention was given to Josh just to give him a chance to compete.

Yeah Josh Griffin is a real tool, I remember when that talkshow segment was released. I suspect he might have been recieving a blowjob from George Lucas live on the air.

It doesn't look like digital photography. But its also not the Jedi film stock. All those pictures were promotional shots from 35mm stills.

There's probably audio clips and narration selling the film along with that still if you could ever play it back I'm sure. Cool find.