That bitch Lucas announces Star wars on Blu Rayz

[emphatic]

Gene Hackman is a much better actor.

All the more reason for you to watch The Conversation. It's a great little paranoid film.

[moozooh]

So, if I were to get the original trilogy in some form, what edition would be the best to have? :latetotheparty:

[Gus]

I'd say to just not bother. That money would be better spent towards something like Blade Runner which is a far better movie where you don't have to tolerate letterboxed laserdisc rips if you feel like watching its original version.

[PC Engine Fan X!]

So, if I were to get the original trilogy in some form, what edition would be the best to have? :latetotheparty:

Go for the first pressing editions of 20th Century Fox's Laserdisc versions of the original SW trilogy would be your best bet.

Even in HD I didn't see a toilet in Princess Leia's cell.

Goes to show you that the Empire doesn't believe in private toilet perks for their prisoners (even female ones). Might as well stoop in a corner & do it if nature calls.

-------------------------
Leia's detention cell door opens up.

Stormtrooper #1: What's that smell?

Leia: It's #2, you dolt.

Stormtrooper #2 (Holds his hand to his mask to block the foul stench.) Facing Stormtrooper #1 and mentions directly to him: Told you, that the engineers should have built some toilets in them cells. Guess we'll have to get some sanitation droids to clean it up quickly.

Stormtrooper #1: Send the call out for it to be done right away.

Stormtrooper #2: Yes sir.

A few minutes later, everything in the cell is sparkling clean, super shiny and fresh smelling as a daisy. The sanitation droids even left a deodorizing tree as a small parting gift as well.
-------------------------

PC Engine Fan X! ^_~

[moozooh]

I'd say to just not bother. That money would be better spent towards something like Blade Runner which is a far better movie where you don't have to tolerate letterboxed laserdisc rips if you feel like watching its original version.

I'm not sure yet if I want to buy it in the first place, and besides that I already have Blade Runner. :)

Thing is, I haven't really watched the original trilogy yet. Didn't catch it as a kid, then decided to watch the entire saga in chronological order, then figured I'd wait for the upcoming remaster, then realized it would most likely be heavily edited. Which brings us to the present day where there are so many fucking editions I have no idea which of them to watch.

[brentsg]

Just buy the Blu-rays. They look fantastic and the edits are only offensive to people that have the original theatrical releases engrained in their childhood memories.

It's definitely not worth messing with Laserdiscs unless you happen to have a player in your possession, and hooked up!

[CMoon]

Yeah, if you didn't see it as a kid, it probably doesn't matter. The problem is that the vast majority of people who care about SW, care about it because they saw it as a kid, and there's huge nostalgia value. For all of them, the changes are like fucking with your childhood.

[GaijinPunch]

What's the difference in the LD versions and the 2006 "Unaltered" trilology DVD release?

[dcharlie]

For all of them, the changes are like fucking with your childhood.

i'm fine with a whole bunch of the changes because ultimately i can filter them out (the inserted song, the new CG bits, Jabba and Han's conversation) ...

the ONLY exception i have is the (here's where everyone rolleyes) "Greedo shot first" thing for reasons i can't be bothered repeating and everyone has heard a billion times anyways

[Moniker]

There *is* an edition on dvd that contains the original theatrical release - I'm assuming this has the same video quality as laserdisc. It's the edition of empire I have.

Edit: need to read more better.

[brentsg]

What's the difference in the LD versions and the 2006 "Unaltered" trilology DVD release?

It should essentially be the same. The DVD set contains the original releases from the LD master, but they are not remastered or anamorphic. The main attraction was supposed to be the altered versions.

[GaijinPunch]

The main attraction was supposed to be the altered versions.

I was supposed to get laid a lot once I got married. Doesn't make it so.

[dan76]

So, if I were to get the original trilogy in some form, what edition would be the best to have? :latetotheparty:

Just get the 2006 dvds with the theatrical versions on the second disc. On a 32" crt they look great - I'm guessing an HD tv might look a bit jaggy. You will see the odd blemish but that's ok - it's a film.

"SPOILER"
Well, I can live with it, I can't live with Luke seeing Hayden Christensen standing next to Yoda and Obi-Wan. That's not nostalgia, it just doesn't make any sense.


I heard something similar was done with Pink Floyd Live in Pompeii where a load of CGI was plopped in. I haven't watched it but it sounds dreadful. There is nothing organic about CGI, it sticks out like a saw thumb. Anyone seen it?

[Skykid]

it sticks out like a saw thumb.

Is that a horror movie reference?

[dan76]

Not that I would know of. I don't really watch modern horror films as they're not really scary anymore (are they?). Seems like most of them turn into mini action movies. Also, CGI monster/demons whatever aren't scary.

I did watch Hostel 2 when it was last on tv. Apparently that Roth guy is a bit of a douche but who cares, the film wasn't to good anyhow - but holy hell that scene with Mrs. Bathory... gave me the horn for a week.

[greg]

What's the difference in the LD versions and the 2006 "Unaltered" trilology DVD release?

Laser rot.

[brentsg]

The main attraction was supposed to be the altered versions.

I was supposed to get laid a lot once I got married. Doesn't make it so.

You should talk to Lucas. I bet he can fix this.

[Skykid]

The main attraction was supposed to be the altered versions.

I was supposed to get laid a lot once I got married. Doesn't make it so.

Use the force.

[moozooh]

Definitely one of the cleverer jokes involving "use the force".

[burgerkingdiamond]

On another note, I can't believe that some people are actually defending the prequels here... what's that all about?

You still have yet to provide examples of "generic designs" (your words) in The Phantom Menace. I assume we're talking about hardware design and the word "generic" was intended as derogatory.
My idea of generic SF designs in American cinema is more like stuff you can see in The Matrix or Men in Black - ugly and pedestrian. Oh yes, Battlefield Earth and Total Recall too. I guess whoever designed Mars Matrix gear was into those flicks.

For fuck's sake, why did you have to put that POS Battlefield Earth in the same sentence as Total Recall? You're sick.

And I don't see whats so bad about Dracula besides Keanu Reeves. I think Skykid said that having Bram Stoker's in the title is an insult to the man or something like that. Ummm. The movie actually follows the book very closely if I remember right (although not 100%)

[Skykid]

I think Skykid said that having Bram Stoker's in the title is an insult to the man or something like that. Ummm. The movie actually follows the book very closely if I remember right (although not 100%)

Have you read the book?

The part where handsome Dracula rolls into town and starts romancing Mina Harker before banging her in a bed of roses must have been missing from my copy.

[burgerkingdiamond]

I think Skykid said that having Bram Stoker's in the title is an insult to the man or something like that. Ummm. The movie actually follows the book very closely if I remember right (although not 100%)

Have you read the book?

The part where handsome Dracula rolls into town and starts romancing Mina Harker before banging her in a bed of roses must have been missing from my copy.

I read the book in High School. I'm not claiming that it's 100% accurate. But I had the impression that most of the movie followed the book pretty close. I would probably need to re-read the book and then watch the movie again to spot more differences.

[GaijinPunch]

That movie is one of the worst instances of "made in a studio and it shows" in the history of cinema.

[Obiwanshinobi]

The issue I have with Coppola's Dracula: it's supposed to LOOK good. Well, it fucking doesn't. End of fucking story. Sure, Gary Oldman is a good actor. I do listen to Tom Waits now and then. Winona Ryder was good in that Jarmush film. And whatnot.
Nevertheless, even The Godfather II (stuffed up its own arse as it is) makes for a better flick in terms of pure watchability.

[Skykid]

I think Skykid said that having Bram Stoker's in the title is an insult to the man or something like that. Ummm. The movie actually follows the book very closely if I remember right (although not 100%)

Have you read the book?

The part where handsome Dracula rolls into town and starts romancing Mina Harker before banging her in a bed of roses must have been missing from my copy.

I read the book in High School. I'm not claiming that it's 100% accurate. But I had the impression that most of the movie followed the book pretty close. I would probably need to re-read the book and then watch the movie again to spot more differences.

It's not even close to accurate. Let me summarise for you: Dracula is not Pride & Prejudice. Dracula is not a love story in any shape or form: it's pure gothic horror about an inhuman monster looking to relocate from the Carpathians to London so that he can feed on the population. He's not attractive, did not have a queen who was slain during his mortal years who happens to be the spitting image of Mina Harker.
He does feed on Mina, but only in an act of revenge against his pursuers - not because his cold heart turns to butter when he sees her visage. She at no point is ever attracted to a beast who is poisoning her with undead blood.

Presenting Dracula as a love story of any kind is a total misrepresentation of the novel, and calling it "Bram Stoker's" is very poor taste. It leads ignorant kids to think it's a romantic novel.
As the film is an interpretation of the book, it should be called 'Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula', and then everyone knows who to blame.

[dan76]

The issue I have with Coppola's Dracula: it's supposed to LOOK good. Well, it fucking doesn't. End of fucking story. Sure, Gary Oldman is a good actor. I do listen to Tom Waits now and then. Winona Ryder was good in that Jarmush film. And whatnot.
Nevertheless, even The Godfather II (stuffed up its own arse as it is) makes for a better flick in terms of pure watchability.

I think Dracula has some charm to it because it utilises very theatrical lighting techniques - not so much as One From the Heart, but it's certainly there. Yes it's filmed in a studio, with miniatures, forced perspective, reverse photography... it's like a mini Mario Bava film. Lots of lighting transitions done on set that would now be handled in post production.

It looks a bit old fashioned, that end chase sequence in the snow is pretty bad. It's not a good film but I like the physical effects. It's the actors in it that screw it up. If it had been made with unknowns in Italian it would be much better.

[Moniker]

I think Dracula has some charm to it because it utilises very theatrical lighting techniques - not so much as One From the Heart, but it's certainly there. Yes it's filmed in a studio, with miniatures, forced perspective, reverse photography... it's like a mini Mario Bava film. Lots of lighting transitions done on set that would now be handled in post production.

It looks a bit old fashioned, that end chase sequence in the snow is pretty bad. It's not a good film but I like the physical effects. It's the actors in it that screw it up. If it had been made with unknowns in Italian it would be much better.

I agree with your take on the photography. It's meant to convey a sort of melodrama that belongs to the silent film era when film and theater weren't yet so far separated. One may find this ineffective, but I don't think it's fair to call it shoddy workmanship. It was very deliberate.

Apart from Keanu, I thought the acting was pretty sharp. Gary Oldman & Anthony Hopkins were ace, anyway. Same goes for the guy from the Princess Bride whose name I can never remember. Tom Waits is a treasure as always. The Texan was kinda stupid, but he was just as stupid in the book, so there's a little Stoker for ya. The frauleins got their jobs done, although people tend to harsh on Winona in everything she's in, but she wasn't bad.

As for not sticking to the source material, I think it did as good a job as you can get from an epistolary novel. Things just have to be added for the medium change. Sexuality was most definitely an overriding theme in the book. You can haggle back and forth on whether it deserves to bear the author's name, but I don't see the point of getting too hung up on it in any case. It's not like the novel is high art or anything; it's not like fucking up Shakespeare or even Frankenstein.

[Skykid]

The issue I have with Coppola's Dracula: it's supposed to LOOK good. Well, it fucking doesn't. End of fucking story. Sure, Gary Oldman is a good actor. I do listen to Tom Waits now and then. Winona Ryder was good in that Jarmush film. And whatnot.
Nevertheless, even The Godfather II (stuffed up its own arse as it is) makes for a better flick in terms of pure watchability.

I think Dracula has some charm to it because it utilises very theatrical lighting techniques - not so much as One From the Heart, but it's certainly there. Yes it's filmed in a studio, with miniatures, forced perspective, reverse photography... it's like a mini Mario Bava film. Lots of lighting transitions done on set that would now be handled in post production.

It looks a bit old fashioned, that end chase sequence in the snow is pretty bad. It's not a good film but I like the physical effects. It's the actors in it that screw it up. If it had been made with unknowns in Italian it would be much better.

It's fucking appalling. I just finished watching it for the sake of good argument.
Its only saving grace is that visually there are moments of artistic merit, and Gary Oldman is a brilliant actor. Unfortunately he's the only thing worth watching.

Everybody else's performance stinks. Even Hopkins as Van Helsing is dire, simply because they totally ballsed up a wonderful character by turning him from an educated professor into an eccentric lunatic whose lifelong goal has been to hunt vampires (which is retarded, as in the book he knows nothing about such things when he first appears.)

It's so hammy it's painful, so clumsy it's cringeworthy (Keanu Reeves especially) and pivotally has a completely different central narrative to the book, and several changed aspects and characters.

It's interesting watching movies like these in the same way as watching a beautiful car go over a cliff. You have a great story, a big budget, a good leading actor and pretty wonderful art directors: yet somehow it ends up as two hours of third rate garbage.

Bram Stoker should have risen from his grave and driven a stake through Coppola's heart.

It's not like the novel is high art or anything; it's not like fucking up Shakespeare or even Frankenstein.

Are you for real man?! It's a literary classic.

EDIT: Dude, your post...

The Texan was kinda stupid, but he was just as stupid in the book,

No he wasn't. Which version did you read, Dracula for under fives?

Tom Waits is a treasure as always.

He was totally and completely average.

although people tend to harsh on Winona in everything she's in, but she wasn't bad.

She was diabolical.

As for not sticking to the source material, I think it did as good a job as you can get from an epistolary novel.

That it's an epistolary novel is trivial - it's not difficult to film. The whole notion of journal entries becomes secondary once it's underway. The film did a rubbish job of getting it right, is the issue.

Sexuality was most definitely an overriding theme in the book.

No, it was a completely underlying theme in the book, turned into a retarded overriding theme in the film where all the gals want to do is get fucked while they're being sucked. It was ridiculous. The only saving grace was getting to look at Sadie's titties while I tried to block out her awful acting.

[Moniker]

It's not like the novel is high art or anything; it's not like fucking up Shakespeare or even Frankenstein.

Are you for real man?! It's a literary classic.

It's a gothic/horror classic. But you won't find many grad (or even undergrad) classes with Dracula on the syllabus, like you would Frankenstein. One of my professors has an essay featured in the Norton edition. Even she doesn't really take it seriously except for its popularization of the vampire as a Victorian trope for sexuality. Of course, it had been done earlier and better by the likes of Goethe and Coleridge.

Don't get me wrong, it's very good. But it's pop-lit that's been elevated by its iconic status (much as you argued re: Pacino). As far as VicLit goes, it's kind of bottom-of-the-barrel.

So I won't shed any tears for unfaithful adaptations.

[NTSC-J]

"Ahhhh....talk about Star Wars!"