Futurama   Planet Express Employee Lounge
The Futurama Message Board

Design and Support by Can't get enough Futurama
Help Search Futurama chat Login Register

PEEL - The Futurama Message Board    It's got a TV!    Star Wars: Untouched or Altered? « previous next »
Author Topic: Star Wars: Untouched or Altered?  (Read 1990 times)
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 Print
PEE Poll: Star Wars:  Untouched or Altered?
Untouched.  Leave classics alone!   -21 (80.8%)
Altered.  The changes make it better!   -5 (19.2%)
Total Voters: 26

newhook_1

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #120 on: 09-22-2004 16:26 »

I'm a dirty whore. I saw the DVD's at HMV today and broke down and bought them. If anyone ever has a boycott for something, do not invite me to join in.  tongue
M Jackson
Professor
*
« Reply #121 on: 09-22-2004 16:38 »
« Last Edit on: 09-22-2004 16:38 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by Melllvar:
I'm with you on Jar Jar (he, or course, makes the Ewoks look like Shaft    wink).


Mellvar, there's a place for words like that. It's called the Spaced thread   smile Great line though.
So now that you've given into the darkside newhook, what do you think of the DVDs? Good aren't they  smile
Otis P Jivefunk

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #122 on: 09-22-2004 16:47 »

I've watched all three movies on DVD now, and they all have supreme sound and picture quality. The sound during the action scenes in the third film is amazing, it really makes you feel like you're there. The cgi is a bit of a pain though, because it shows up as inconsistent with the remaining original effects. These inconsistencies especially show up when it's presented with such amazing picture quality. Having said that, these DVD's are without the best quality-wise to enjoy the movies...
newhook_1

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #123 on: 09-22-2004 16:54 »

Well, I'm still slightly annoyed with the whole RTOTJ/Haydan thing, but the improved video and sound quality makes up for it. I still have the original versions on VCD if I ever want to watch them. The clean up job they did with the Video/Audio is freaking amazing considering the age of the films.

Gonna sit down tonight and go through the extras. In closing, yes they are good, and even if you are pissed with the changes (as I am with a couple) you should still buy them, because they're still fantastic movies, and in the end (after I thought about it for awhile) that's really all that should matter.
CyberKnight

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #124 on: 09-22-2004 17:24 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by DotheBartman:
And yeah, I'd agree with that Cyber.  It just looks too...glaring when a CGI effect pops up in a 70's/80's film.  And when the CGI effects are actually worse, it makes it even more glaring.

I wasn't going to say anything, because I feared it would be a little blasphemos, but personally, I don't think ILM's CGI output is up to snuff, and certainly nowhere near as good as their "old-fashioned" special effects work. It just doesn't compare to Pixar, Dreamworks or even the company which does the modern "Star Trek" series' effects (Voyager's "Fury", aside.  wink).

Put simply, I think their CGI work looks too....CGI. I can't think of a single instance where a scene has not immediately leapt out at me and said "HEY! LOOK! I'M CGI! SHINY, HUH?".  wink

Don't get me wrong, ILM's CGI engineers obviously have talent, but I think the overuse of CGI in the Star Wars films has dulled their sword; in my opinion it's much better to limit your CGI to a few key setpieces that hold the audience's imagination, than liberally splash it throughout the film.
M Jackson
Professor
*
« Reply #125 on: 09-22-2004 17:42 »

Do you mean all the CGI work they've ever done? Or just the CGI in the Star Wars films? Because I can honestly say that the CGI T-Rex in the original Jurassic Park is still the best CG effect I have EVER seen (that includes Gollum, Yes I know he was done by Weta). Just look at the shots of him/it escaping from it's paddock onto the main road! STUNNING!
+ I like the CG work in the Star Wars films. The CG Jabba in the 97 New Hope didn't hold up too well, but now it's been fixed for the DVDs. And no matter how much you dislike Jar Jar, he does look pretty impressive. You can almost imagine how the texture on his skin would feel....uh, not..that...you'd want to touch Jar Jar.
winna

Avatar Czar
DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #126 on: 09-22-2004 18:02 »

Or his foreskin...
M Jackson
Professor
*
« Reply #127 on: 09-22-2004 18:19 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by winna:
Or his foreskin...


  laff   laff   laff   laff   laff
As much as that made me laugh, it has created a NASTY image in my head + I'm going to bed now, i'll be having nighmares.  hmpf
DotheBartman

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #128 on: 09-22-2004 19:04 »

Jurassic Park looked great, but let us not forget that that had a lot to do with good animatronic/model effects.  They did a good job of integrating the computer effects with them but it wasn't strictly CGI.  By comparison, the almost-all CGI Jurassic Park 3 looked pretty bad.  I'll concede I don't remember how good or bad #2 looked.

The Star Wars prequels....way, way too "showy" looking and often they look too much like they were rendered on an X-Box.  Just look at The Phantom Menace...nothing, and I mean NOTHING (and that includes Jar Jar) looks real.  And there's points where they seem to be just showing off, like all those shots right before the Gungan/Droid battle were they just stand around and look shiny for several minutes.  AOTC looks better, but still had IMO too many points where it specifically occured to me that I was watching CGI, which should never happen.  Plus in both cases I felt the design itself was often lackluster (AOTC is again much better though).  Good designs can sell effects, and a good design is not something Jar Jar had going for him.

I think the only fully CGI character that I've ever found truly convincing (I'm not counting Pixar, Shrek, etc since that's more an animation style then an "effect" ) has been Gollum.  They did a ridiculously good job on that, and the fact that I rarely (if ever) stopped to think about the fact that it was CGI is a testament to that.  Unfortunately the movies themselves (at least the first two, haven't gotten around to ROTK) still had some points that looked like a video game though.  But overall they're very good examples of CGI, largely because they did it more for artistic reasons (instead of laziness) and also realized that you still need to build some sets for the characters to interact with here and there.  You can't have the entire landscape be CGI.

Nurdbot

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #129 on: 09-22-2004 19:14 »

 
Quote

Check them out. Please?
Grim

Professor
*
« Reply #130 on: 09-22-2004 20:31 »

Its suprising actually how much WETA still uses minatures (or Big-atures as the special features call them) a lot of the architecture shots were actually just scale models. Even the tearing down of the dam in the 2 towers was done with real water and minatures, touched up a bit with CGI.

Perhaps less is more when it comes to CGI?
Sivak

Delivery Boy
**
« Reply #131 on: 09-22-2004 21:41 »

I got 'em today. I watched Empire first, then 4, then 6.  I like how the picture, color, and sound is improved.  The new Jabba in 4 looks less cartoony.  Boba is voiced as Jango and Vader speaks to a hologram of Ian McDiarmid in Empire.  I liked those changes, actually.

The only scene I don't like is the one in Jabba's palace with the band...  It just is too silly.  I have no kwirks with Hayden or Naboo at the end of RotJ...  Hayden is on screen for like 10 seconds total...  Big deal.  I have yet to watch the Extras disc, so I have no opinions on that yet.
Nixorbo

UberMod
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #132 on: 09-22-2004 22:28 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by Grim:
Perhaps less is more when it comes to CGI?

Case in point: League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.  The submarine looked so bad, when all you need is a miniature and it'll look just fine.
evan

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #133 on: 09-22-2004 23:16 »

Case in point:  Blade Runner....looks awesome, only minatures were used for the establishing shots.

So, I want to know this:  does the Hayden factor make the rest of the trilogy unwatchable, or is it still okay?
SlaytanicMaggot
Professor
*
« Reply #134 on: 09-22-2004 23:47 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by Nixorbo:
 Case in point: League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.  The submarine looked so bad, when all you need is a miniature and it'll look just fine.

The sub didn't look so bad. It was the fact that it was two stories tall yet somehow fit in the canals of Venice.

anyways, here's a CNN interview w/Lucas.

I quote from it:
 
Quote
Q: Why not release both the originals and special editions on DVD?

LUCAS: The special edition, that's the one I wanted out there. The other movie, it's on VHS, if anybody wants it. ...

I'm not going to spend the, we're talking millions of dollars here, the money and the time to refurbish that, because to me, it doesn't really exist anymore. It's like this is the movie I wanted it to be, and I'm sorry you saw half a completed film and fell in love with it. But I want it to be the way I want it to be.
   
Lucas has often said he was unhappy with the original trilogy as it was released.

I'm the one who has to take responsibility for it. I'm the one who has to have everybody throw rocks at me all the time, so at least if they're going to throw rocks at me, they're going to throw rocks at me for something I love rather than something I think is not very good, or at least something I think is not finished.

You gotta admire his blunt honesty, at least....

Please edit your sig to 120 pixel height max.
[This message has been edited by Administrator [-mArc-]
Grim

Professor
*
« Reply #135 on: 09-22-2004 23:51 »

The hayden factor barely effects it, u barely see him and he's transparent anyway. The movies are still great
FishyJoe

Honorary German
Urban Legend
***
« Reply #136 on: 09-23-2004 00:30 »

My review of the changes:

A New Hope - not as bad as the original special edition, but I still prefer the original. Greedo shooting makes me cry, and the Jabba scene is crappy no matter how often they update the CGI Jabba model. It's almost made up for, with the updated space ship effects(as far as space ship effects go, this movie has aged the worst out of all of them)...almost.

Empire Strikes Back - what a beautiful fucking movie. This is the only one that I felt was improved upon, by the special edition. And now the DVD version is even better, because they got rid of Luke's scream. I'll say I'm indifferent to the Boba/Emperor redubbings/reshoots. I thought it was fine before(any inconsistencies can be explained by pretending we're just seeing a crappy hologram transmission, and Boba's helmet distorts his voice slightly), but I guess it's not too distracting here.

Return of the Jedi - haven't watched it yet.

I love the cheesy old movie trailers though. How crappy.

SlaytanicMaggot
Professor
*
« Reply #137 on: 09-23-2004 00:31 »
« Last Edit on: 09-23-2004 00:31 »


Please edit your sig to 120 pixel height max.
[This message has been edited by Administrator [-mArc-]
Nurdbot

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #138 on: 09-23-2004 01:58 »

They changed Boba's voice? But I found Jango's Aussie accent a little bit annoying and the fact it was not even scrambled while wearing a helmet very annoying. Boba sounded more sinister without any accent.
evan

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #139 on: 09-23-2004 02:13 »

I don't see the point of changing Boba Fett's voice.  Doesn't he only have like three lines in the entire triology?  If that?

I watched this SW documentary-thingy on VH1, and they interviewed most of the remaining cast.  They talked to Jeremy Bulloch (Boba Fett) and now all I think of is:  "Ha!  You're not in the movies anymore!  Deal with it."  Double that to the guy who played the young Anakin in RotJ and the guy who played the Emperor in ESB.
Nurdbot

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #140 on: 09-23-2004 02:16 »

It sucks to be a minor actor in Star Wars.
termos

Starship Captain
****
« Reply #141 on: 09-23-2004 06:05 »

But what about Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher? It's quite a different story with Harrison Ford...
M Jackson
Professor
*
« Reply #142 on: 09-23-2004 07:05 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by evan:
So, I want to know this:  does the Hayden factor make the rest of the trilogy unwatchable, or is it still okay?

Come one! That's a pretty dumb question!

Are you honestly asking if 10 seconds of footage at the end of the last film effects the rest of the trilog! No the "Hayden factor" works great and adds continuity to the saga as a whole. Same wth all the other changes (except Greedo shooting first) hmpf
Nurdbot

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #143 on: 09-23-2004 08:00 »

Sometimes, continuity just plain sucks.
M0le

Space Pope
****
« Reply #144 on: 09-23-2004 08:09 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by Nurdbot:
But I found Jango's Aussie accent a little bit annoying and the fact it was not even scrambled while wearing a helmet very annoying.
Temuera Morrison is from New Zealand, not Australia. There's a big difference between Aussie and Kiwi accents.  wink
FishyJoe

Honorary German
Urban Legend
***
« Reply #145 on: 09-23-2004 10:29 »
« Last Edit on: 09-23-2004 10:29 »

   
Quote
Originally posted by evan:
I watched this SW documentary-thingy on VH1, and they interviewed most of the remaining cast.  They talked to Jeremy Bulloch (Boba Fett) and now all I think of is:  "Ha!  You're not in the movies anymore!  Deal with it."  Double that to the guy who played the young Anakin in RotJ and the guy who played the Emperor in ESB.

False! Jeremy Bulloch was in the Boba Fett suit, but he never provided the voice. So his contribution to the movies has stayed in tact.

And the guy who plays young Anakin still appears as old ugly/scarred Anakin.

 
Quote
By Nurdbot:But I found Jango's Aussie accent a little bit annoying and the fact it was not even scrambled while wearing a helmet very annoying.

True! The accent is fine, but Boba's original voice was so cool, with the helmet-ey sounding distortion. Jango simply does not sound as menacing.

 
Quote
By M Jackson
No the "Hayden factor" works great and adds continuity to the saga as a whole.

False! It doesn't add continuity, it's just stupid and confusing and unnecessary.

 
Quote
By M0le:
There's a big difference between Aussie and Kiwi accents.

False! They are exactly the same.

 
Quote
By VelourFog:
Jeff is hot and I totally want to make out with him.

...true.
Nurdbot

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #146 on: 09-23-2004 12:19 »

I expected Jango was going to invite Obi in for a Barbie and a can on fosters.

*Runs from the Aussies*

Action Jacktion

Professor
*
« Reply #147 on: 09-23-2004 15:39 »
« Last Edit on: 09-23-2004 15:39 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by FishyJoe:
False! They are exactly the same.
No, they're similar but different.

http://www.emigratenz.org/AccentNewZealand.html

http://english.unitecnology.ac.nz/resources/resources/exp_lang/pronunciation.html

http://www.fact-index.com/n/ne/new_zealand_english.html
termos

Starship Captain
****
« Reply #148 on: 09-23-2004 16:36 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by Action Jacktion:
   
Quote
Originally posted by FishyJoe:
False! They are exactly the same.
No, they're similar but different.
That's pretty weak, FishyJoe, even I knew that.

Anyway the DVDs have amazing image quality compared to my tapes. So smooth and delicious...

newhook_1

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #149 on: 09-23-2004 20:32 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by Nurdbot:
I expected Jango was going to invite Obi in for a Barbie and a can on fosters.

*Runs from the Aussies*



Better than Obi inviting Jango out for a crumpit and a spot of tea.
Jicannon

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #150 on: 09-23-2004 23:06 »

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned in this thread yet, but in the re-release of the Trilogy, Jar-Jar Binks appears at the end of Return of the Jedi.  hmpf My friend bought it today and told me that during the celebration they show Naboo and Jar-Jar is among the group rejoicing. I would have thought he would have died...I mean Obi-Wan is old in A New Hope, wouldn't Jar-Jar have died by the end of RotJ?
DotheBartman

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #151 on: 09-23-2004 23:12 »

I've heard that story elsewhere.  I wasn't sure if I was going to believe it yet (someone on another forum said he says "Weesa free!".  I knew there were Gungans in it, but this is especcially bad if true.

A story I heard on another forum (from people I trust, so I put more faith in this specifically) is that Jar Jar was actually going to die based on one Episode III script, but it got changed.  Blast.
evan

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #152 on: 09-23-2004 23:16 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by Jicannon:
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned in this thread yet, but in the re-release of the Trilogy, Jar-Jar Binks appears at the end of Return of the Jedi.   hmpf My friend bought it today and told me that during the celebration they show Naboo and Jar-Jar is among the group rejoicing. I would have thought he would have died...I mean Obi-Wan is old in A New Hope, wouldn't Jar-Jar have died by the end of RotJ?

The fans demanded Jar Jar return.  After all, Obi-Wan = not that popular.  Jar Jar = most popular character in the series, according to Lucas.

Bender: "Try this, kids at home!
Warning: do not try this at home
Jicannon

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #153 on: 09-23-2004 23:18 »

My friend said Jar Jar didn't say anything...maybe it's just not very audible over the crowd and music. Jar Jar is supposedly the favorite of one of Lucas's nephews (?)...someone he's related to. Which is why I can't tell if you're being sarcastic of not evan  tongue
FlexoLives

Crustacean
*
« Reply #154 on: 09-23-2004 23:46 »
« Last Edit on: 09-23-2004 23:46 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by evan:
I don't see the point of changing Boba Fett's voice.  Doesn't he only have like three lines in the entire triology?  If that?

I watched this SW documentary-thingy on VH1, and they interviewed most of the remaining cast.  They talked to Jeremy Bulloch (Boba Fett) and now all I think of is:  "Ha!  You're not in the movies anymore!  Deal with it."  Double that to the guy who played the young Anakin in RotJ and the guy who played the Emperor in ESB.
As FishyJoe said, the guy who played the Anakin-ghost in RotJ is still there in the scene where Luke takes off Vader's helmet, although they digitally removed his big bushy eyebrows. The emperor in ESB was an old woman with chimp eyes superimposed on her face...or maybe you're talking about the voice actor?
newhook_1

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #155 on: 09-24-2004 01:12 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by DotheBartman:
I've heard that story elsewhere.  I wasn't sure if I was going to believe it yet (someone on another forum said he says "Weesa free!".  I knew there were Gungans in it, but this is especcially bad if true.

A story I heard on another forum (from people I trust, so I put more faith in this specifically) is that Jar Jar was actually going to die based on one Episode III script, but it got changed.  Blast.

A gungan does say "Weesa Free" or something similar, but there is no indication that it's Jar Jar.
winna

Avatar Czar
DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #156 on: 09-24-2004 01:14 »

In the final re-re-release version jar jar's spirit will accompany Hayden, Obi Wan, and Yoda at the end of RotJ...
DotheBartman

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #157 on: 09-24-2004 01:38 »
« Last Edit on: 09-24-2004 01:38 »

Here's actually some interesting stuff from an IGN interview with Gary Kurtz (back in 2002).  Here's the link as well, very interesting and even kind of explains what went "wrong" (in comparison to Star Wars and Empire) with ROTJ.  For reference where I started is when they're talking about a movie called "Return to Oz" that Kurtz worked on.http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/376/376873p1.html

IGNFF: Although, technically, comparing it back, the original Wizard of Oz had the same problem.

KURTZ: It did, but it worked better in the Wizard of Oz, I think, just because of the way it was handled and the kind of movie that it was. I think that if I were doing Return to Oz now, I would have eliminated a lot of the celebration in Oz and the whole "stay here with us, Dorothy" and would have gotten the princess out, and gotten her out quicker somehow. A movie is what it is because that's what happened at the time that is one of the reasons why I rail against this idea about changing movies all the time. This is a very common practice now, which I really don't like on any movie. I don't like the Special Editions of Star Wars and all these other movies that have come out with a super-duper director's cut like the special edition of Close Encounters. You name it. Practically every movie now does it, because they can do it for DVD.

IGNFF: The ironic thing of it is that no matter how many times someone protests that no, it was their original intention, any choices they make now are going to be colored by their experiences since they made the film.

KURTZ: Oh, absolutely. The reason is that there is a whole emotional vortex around how a movie is made, and it captures a certain flavor of the moment. What's a perfect example? The Sweet Smell of Success, Sandy Mackendrick's film, made in the mid-'50s in New York. It's a very harsh, downbeat, dark, film noir film terrific film. It's one of my favorite films. If he would have made that film 10 years earlier or 10 years later, it would have been an entirely different movie, even from the same script.

So this idea of adding things the problem with the Special Edition of the Star Wars films is that fixing a few matte lines and adding a couple of spaceships into shots is fine. I don't think anybody would notice that. But actually adding scenes that don't make any difference they actually don't have any effect whatsoever on the film... and all of those digitally enhanced shots of robots floating around and creatures walking through the frame... call attention to themselves. Are much worse, actually, I think. Primarily because CGI work and that CGI work was done by ILM, which is the best there is the CGI stuff does not fit in with the mechanical style of the original film. If the whole film would have been made today, then the CGI work would fit in much more, because that's the way all the visual effects would have been done.

IGNFF: Oh, I don't know in Episode I, the CGI still calls attention to itself.

KURTZ: Well, it does, yes, that's true. Even though there's lots of it and most of the shots have some kind of CGI but it's less annoying, I think, and stands out less than it does in the Special Editions.

If you remember the scene when the robots go down to Tatooine, to the desert, and then later you cut back to the Stormtroopers looking for them, there's a scene where Stormtroopers are sitting up on the hill in the background riding what looks like a giant lizard. In the original, that's a mock-up that we borrowed, rendered from a prop house, and carried all the way out there and stuck it there in the sand. It didn't do anything. There was just a Stormtrooper sitting on a giant lizard, a model. It doesn't do anything it's just in the background and the Stormtrooper in the foreground stands up with a piece of the robot and says, "They've been here." That's all the scene is supposed to be for. As it is in the Special Edition, that Stormtrooper on the dinosaur in the background moves it's all CGI.

IGNFF: And it adds nothing whatsoever to the story.

KURTZ: I know, and that's what I mean with the proliferation. Just because you can do it, doesn't make it better. But those animals moving actually distract from the principal purpose of the scene. If they had been horses, if it had been a Western and those were horses, chances are the horses would have just been sitting there, because horses do that a lot. They don't move much. If they're not running or trotting or something, sometimes they just sit there and maybe flick their ears a bit for long periods of time.

IGNFF: But they don't do a song and dance number.

KURTZ: No, they don't move around at all. They just stand there. If they had made it that subtle, if they had had that creature in the background move its head an inch to the right or something, a blink that would have been all that you need to do. But it's not necessary at all, because the way it was in the beginning, in the first place, it was that way because that's all we could afford and it worked fine. I'm just not a great believer in messing with what is done. It may not be perfect, and as I said a long time ago, there's nothing that is. No movie is perfect, and every filmmaker is going to sit and watch a movie that he made 10 years ago, or 30 years ago, or 50 years ago, and say, "Oh, I wish I could have done that better."

IGNFF: You're the person to ask about this when you're talking about these kind of special editions and changes and are they due to an original vision or changing sensibilities I have to ask you about your thoughts regarding the infamous redo of the scene with Greedo in the cantina.... the whole shooting first thing.

KURTZ: Yeah, I really was livid about that one. I think it was a total it ruins the scene, basically. The scene was never intended that way. Han Solo realized that Greedo was out to get him and he had to blast him first or he would lose his life. It shows you how much of a mercenary he is. That's what the point of the scene was. And so the way they've changed it around, it loses the whole impact of that whole aspect of it.

IGNFF: Do you think that's due to George's changing sensibilities as opposed to his argument that, "No, that was my original intention"?

KURTZ: Well, he can say that was his original intention, but we could have shot it that way very easily. There was no reason that it couldn't have been shot that way. It was shot and edited the way it was because that's the way the script was. That's what he wanted at the time.

IGNFF: What is your opinion of why he would try and rationalize it, when he could very well just say, "You know, I just thought nowadays, it's better if he shoots first."

KURTZ: Maybe he just didn't want to say that. Maybe he felt it was a stronger argument to say, "That's what I really wanted to do and I just didn't have time or inclination at the time." You listen to all these directors, they all say that. That's the stock argument ... somehow if they say that, you can't argue with them.

IGNFF: I think Apocalypse Now is now, what, 16 hours or something?

KURTZ: 16 hours? No, no. No, they've added the 50 some odd minutes back ...

IGNFF: With the French Plantation scene.

KURTZ: Yeah, it's mostly the French Plantation scene. That's probably a mistake, too. It's a disease, basically. I suppose they can do whatever they like, but I just would like to see the original version of everything preserved. When Star Wars comes out on DVD, the only version that's going to be available is the Special Edition. They're not going to do the original unless he changes his mind.

IGNFF: Which is unfortunate, because that's the perfect medium for it.

KURTZ: Yeah, the idea is that you could do both. I'm sure you'd have an audience out there that would buy both. Maybe it will be both, who knows. Be interesting to see how that would work, marketing wise. But I just don't like changing whatever a film is like when it's finished good, bad, or indifferent, that's the way it was it released and the way the audience perceives it. To keep fiddling with it, long after the fact... Jean Renoir said in a documentary interview that we did with him when we were all film students, that something that he learned from his father was that, for an artist, the most important thing is to know when you're done, and leave it. Of course for a painter, it's absolutely crucial, because you put too much extra paint on and you've ruined the painting. With a filmmaker, you have a certain amount of recourse and you can change it again, but the principle is still the same to know when you're done, and when it's over, and when it's finished and you walk away. It's critical, because you can be like Kubrick, and you can work on it forever, and it's still not going to get any better.

DotheBartman

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #158 on: 09-24-2004 01:41 »
« Last Edit on: 09-24-2004 01:41 »

Sorry for the double post but that last one is long enough.

Thanks Newhook.  Nice to know its not Jar Jar, but "Weesa Free" is from any gungan is bad enough.  In fact the very presence of gungans, or Naboo itself, is bad enough.

Also, trying to find the link, but Mark Hammil recently voiced some dissent to changes as well.  He put it in a fairly nice way, but he basically said that he's a "purist" and doesn't like to see movies be changed.
Nurdbot

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #159 on: 09-24-2004 01:56 »

*Imagines the damn Gungan being shot 4 seconds later by a Stormtrooper*
I'd like to see that.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2006, Simple Machines | some icons from famfamfam
Legal Notice & Disclaimer: "Futurama" TM and copyright FOX, its related entities and the Curiosity Company. All rights reserved. Any reproduction, duplication or distribution of these materials in any form is expressly prohibited. As a fan site, this Futurama forum, its operators, and any content on the site relating to "Futurama" are not explicitely authorized by Fox or the Curiosity Company.
Page created in 0.219 seconds with 19 queries.