logo Sign In

zombie84

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

Post History

Post
#320363
Topic
Episode II: Shroud of the Dark Side (the TM edit) (Released)
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/320363/action/topic#320363
Time
Hey I totally forgot about this. I don't think there's much salvagable in the AOTC we got but its interesting to see how drastically it can be improved just using the elements available. Its always shocked me how otherwise competant professionals could produce a product so obviously flawed. Although I guess I should be wary of calling Ben Burtt a professional editor, its no coincidence that no one except George Lucas has ever hired him. I think he quit the editing business recently actually, he seemed to also have some subtle resentment to be sort of pushed aside for ROTS (yeah, I wonder why, right?).

Uh, anyway, will be a fun day when this is done Trooperman. Even if its not a perfect fan-edit its still interesting to see such ambitious attempts at improvement.
Post
#320332
Topic
Waait, did George change it again?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/320332/action/topic#320332
Time
LOL you might be right, it sort of looks like they left it as it was in 1997 but then just added another laser beam a few frames before so they shoot closer together instead of the awkward space like in the original. The poor workmanship on the SE never ceases to amaze me. I just watched the mos eisley part to see this and watching all those CG entry shots of rontos and everything, the CG looks horrible most the time, I cannot understand people saying this is preferable to the "dated" FX of the original. Its sad that 90% of viewers watching "Star Wars" have to see it like this.
Post
#320218
Topic
New 'The Clone Wars' movie trailer
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/320218/action/topic#320218
Time
Johnboy3434 said:

zombie84 said:

Now all he needs to do is invent a way to do V.O. using computers, then he can cut human beings out of the process completely. Synthetic voice stuff has actually gone a long way since those monotone Stephen Hawking things, its probably not long off if someone invested a few million dollars of research into it. And you could program the inflection to whatever you wanted since it wouldn't be translating live, it would be just like animating images--crap, no one tell Lucas, he'll actually start to do it. Haven't you seen him directing? His rare conversations with actors are obvious and simplistic observations about motivation, only explained with horrendous and stuttered communication, or else acting out how to say the line for the actor. So this has basically been his goal all along.


Say what you will, but I'd pay to see any movie made like that, Star Wars or not.


Me too because I would be curious to how the experiment came out but I don't think anyone with a head on their shoulders would actually endorse it as a legitimate alternative to using actors.
Post
#320150
Topic
New 'The Clone Wars' movie trailer
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/320150/action/topic#320150
Time
Now all he needs to do is invent a way to do V.O. using computers, then he can cut human beings out of the process completely. Synthetic voice stuff has actually gone a long way since those monotone Stephen Hawking things, its probably not long off if someone invested a few million dollars of research into it. And you could program the inflection to whatever you wanted since it wouldn't be translating live, it would be just like animating images--crap, no one tell Lucas, he'll actually start to do it. Haven't you seen him directing? His rare conversations with actors are obvious and simplistic observations about motivation, only explained with horrendous and stuttered communication, or else acting out how to say the line for the actor. So this has basically been his goal all along.
Post
#320144
Topic
New 'The Clone Wars' movie trailer
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/320144/action/topic#320144
Time
My thoughts exactly.

Just remember: this is basically a really well-done saturday morning cartoon for 10 year olds. Putting it in theaters is decieving because it makes you expect something at least on the quality of a straight-to-video feature. But its just a kids cartoon show arbitrarily put on the big screen in a massive milk at the cash cow. If this thing didn't have Star Wars in the title no one would want to see it beyond its weekly episode on TV as viewed by twelve year olds.
Post
#319747
Topic
The Atheism thread
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/319747/action/topic#319747
Time
The example I gave of how religion sometimes results in ostrasization due to inter-faith marriages. The key is "harm" not "effect", you can never not effect someone, but how does a Jew marrying a Muslim, just in itself, cause harm? Its silly that religion promotes discrimination in this way, I understand the reasons behind some people being against inter-faith marriages, but its a shame that religion often encourages division and intolerance in this manner.
Post
#319745
Topic
70mm screening
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/319745/action/topic#319745
Time
The 70mm cell ROTJ is okay, but Empire is going a little and Star Wars has seen significant color shifting--the Death Star interiors are all green if you have any frames from that, and its pinkish in other places as well like in the desert, and the density looks a little weird in places too. 1995 or 1994 would seem appropriate for this print, as that is the year the started releasing these.
Post
#319734
Topic
The Atheism thread
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/319734/action/topic#319734
Time
Tiptup I am aware of all the issue you are bringing up, if you read my original post my point was "if something you do harms no one, nor harms society, then why punish someone for it?", which is really as far as I wished that simplistic "live and let live" sentiment to be taken. You don't need to turn that into anything more than it is.
Post
#319730
Topic
An interview with Spielberg and Lucas, from a few weeks ago.
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/319730/action/topic#319730
Time
Ziz said:

zombie84 said:

I liked how Lucas says "people will hate the film because they just will, because that happened on the prequels" and then Spielberg says "George speak for yourself"--apparently, Lucas still doens't get that the prequels were criticised because they fucking sucked.


But that's Lucas' point - are the prequels really as bad as people say they are, or do people THINK they're bad because of all the build-up to what fans were expecting over the years?

With each series - SW or Indy - you've got 20 years of familiarity and maturity in between there. No matter how hard you try, you're not looking at the new film thru the same eyes or with the same attitude as you did the originals, so naturally you're going to be more critical of it.

I'm not saying the PT or Crystal Skull are flawless - sure they have their rough spots, But are those the fault of the film making process or is the audience just better at finding the faults than they were 20 years ago?


You can't watch Attack of the Clones and say "people criticized the acting and writing in this film because they're not 8 years old anymore." Thats ridiculous, and insulting to the tastes and standards we hold our movies by. Jedi has some weak writing too, which is why we don't look rosy-glassed back at it either. Phantom Menace got unfairly reviled because you'd think it was the worst movie of all time judging by some peoples reactions, its not a complete waste, there were way worse movies that summer, but the prequels were very weak films and thats why they got bad reviews and bad reputations. Its not some nostalgia thing. But Lucas puts up some bullshit to excuse bad moviemaking by blaming the viewers.

Crystal Skull has actually been recieved in pretty much the same manner as the previous two sequels, which tells me its more or less at the same level. It got mostly warm reviews, but some negative ones--better than Temple of Doom, which was hugely criticised by viewers and only got so-so reviews, and similar to Crusade which got good reviews but as fantastic as we might expect. And going by the current estimates, Crystal Skull will probably be the third-highest grossing movie of the year or theareabouts--which is on par with Crusade, which got beat by Batman, and Temple of Doom, which got beat by Beverly Hills Cop and got seriously beat by Ghostbusters. So, Spielberg has been pretty consistent with the franchise, it didn't get the prequel reaction because its not on that low a level, even if it might be the weakest of the three Indy sequels.
Post
#319728
Topic
An interview with Spielberg and Lucas, from a few weeks ago.
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/319728/action/topic#319728
Time
Thanks for posting that, it was very entertaining and revealing.

One thing I found interesting was Spielberg saying he used CG with a soft touch and that Ford is 60 so he should be more aching and panting in the Indy film--but my biggest complaint about the films is it has too much CG in places and that Indy never feels the blows, he's more superhuman and unharmable than in any of the previous films.

I liked how Lucas says "people will hate the film because they just will, because that happened on the prequels" and then Spielberg says "George speak for yourself"--apparently, Lucas still doens't get that the prequels were criticised because they fucking sucked.

Still, a good read though.
Post
#319720
Topic
The Secret History of Star Wars
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/319720/action/topic#319720
Time
canofhumdingers said:

I downloaded this back when the second edition was posted, but i'm just now finally reading it. I'm only to chapter 2, but i have to say you've done an excellent job & i think this book is FAR more deserving of being published than about 99% of books about Star Wars. REALLY well researched & put together. Thanks Zombie!


Are you reading the older edition or the new one? I don't recommend the older version, the new one is a massive improvement.
Post
#319674
Topic
70mm screening
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/319674/action/topic#319674
Time
Baronlando said:

I didn't think there was a theatrical re-release in 85? I know there was one for Jedi, but by then New Hope was a home video monster.


There was a limited triple-bill in 1985 of all three films. It was very small.

The 70mm collectable cells were just taken from a regular print, I believe it was a new print struck just for that, though I could be mistaken. If you've seen those frames, they are faded and the colors are all off. They definitely aren't irreparable, you'd be able to correct them pretty easily, but you can see even in 1995 (or whenever they were made) the original materials were not in good shape. They were probably taken from the master 70mm IP from 1977--I'm assuming there was only one 70mm IP ever made, I seriously doubt there was a need to make more than one (was the film ever even re-released in 70mm? I think it might have been for the '78 re-release, but they might have just re-circulated existing prints, and since the 70mm screenings were limited to begin with, the 70mm IP ought to have been in good shape).
Post
#319665
Topic
70mm screening
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/319665/action/topic#319665
Time
skyjedi2005 said:


The theatrical 1985 re-release of star wars was the digital mix by ben burrt.


Was it really? I guess that makes sense. They were probably the first (and possibly only) prints to be struck from the 1985 IP that was made for home video as well.

I can't imagine why there would be prints made in 1994. How do you know they date from this time?
Post
#319661
Topic
The Atheism thread
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/319661/action/topic#319661
Time
skyjedi2005 said:


I really dislike people who want under god taken out of the pledge of allegiance or in god we trust taken off the money.


Because it makes a blanket statement about the entire population. Its not a big deal because atheists can, after all, ignore it because as far as they are concerned its all mumbo jumbo anyway, but it encourages further state-religion connection and ideally such national items as the pledge of allegiance and the currency should represent the beliefs of all its people, not just some of them.

I'm sure people would make a big stink if its says "in Vishnu we trust". Because what do you care--you don't believe in Vishnu so whats the difference, just ignore it. But its making assumptions about who you are, or who you ought to be, by putting it on currency and the like. I'm not going to even get into the goals and beliefs of the American founding fathers because thats another issue, but its really seperate from the principle here.