Some thoughts on the Star Wars DVD's [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Some thoughts on the Star Wars DVD's



kexodusc
09-21-2004, 05:50 AM
Picked it up on Sunday. A lady friend of mine who works at a store was nice enough to loan it to me on the condition I pay for it later today.

First I'll say that Lucas and crew did a fabulous job with the visuals in these movies. You'd never believe these were 20-25 years old. They are incredible. I thought the Godfather Trilogy was done well, but this is a whole 'nuther level.

The DD EX 6.1 track is fairly competent, with some nice surprises. There are more than a few scenes that really benefit from the rear surround field. (FYI I have a "7.1" setup) Even in 5.1 (which I played with for a bit out of curiousity) the sound track is excellent. John Williams' score never sounded so good.

There are more than a few scenes that suffer from dialogue drop though (similar to Alien 3, but not nearly as bad). Especially in Star Wars (or Ep IV: A New Hope). These are relatively minor, and you don't notice them until the tonality changes when a person's voice returns to how it's suppose to sound like. I'm glad they didn't try re-recording though.

The "new scenes". I really don't know what everyone complains about. With the exception of Greedo apparently shooting first and missing Han Solo in the bar, these are all harmless scenes that had they been included in the originals, wouldn't have taken anything away from the films at all. People just love to complain I guess. There's a few subtle changes that tie the original trilogy in with the prequel trilogy (Anakin's "Force Ghost", no eyebrows on the dude under Darth Vader's mask, etc.) Given that none of these changed the plot much at all and probably would have gone un-noticed if included in the originals, I let them slide without a 2nd though. Some of them are actually kind of cool.

Seeing these again really made me think about my take on the Ep's I and II. I'll be honest, I enjoyed them, thought they were "above average" in terms of today's movies, though I've never felt they quite lived up to the Star Wars franchise, and in that they were kind of a disappointment. But I never understood all the complaining about them...I guess if something sits for 20 years, while anticipation builds, it's pretty much doomed from the start.
After watching the Original Trilogy again, and constantly thinking about Ep I and II, I've come to realize that everyone (myself included) have been way too hard on Lucas for The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones.

The pace, cheesy dialogue, bad Lucas humor, and even "Shakesperean" plot evolution is actually quite consistent in all 5 movies. I had to honestly ask myself, if all 5 of these were released in 1977 at the same time, would the Ep I and II be any worse? In hindsigh, I doubt it. As much as the stupid pod-race bored me (too long, my least favorite part of all the movies so far) and the under water stuff in Ep I, it wasn't much worse than the first 50 minutes or so of A New Hope. Action wise, there's alot more interesting stuff in the new films. I really noticed, however, just how valuable Han Solo's character was. This kind of lowest-common-denominator humor isn't quite so prevalent in Ep's I and II.

There's a lot grander story being told in the new trilogies, and maybe it suffers because the whole world all pretty much knows what it is? Or maybe it's just that it's "more of the same" and not really "revolutionary" as the originals were? Who knows.
My own thought is that the originals can stand as 3 stand-alone movies, whereas the the newer films almost need to be approached as small parts of a larger story, and because of this, can drag on a bit at certain points.

At any rate, I think I'm going to blow the dust of Ep I and II and spin those later this week too, with an open mind and no criticism...Darth Maul <i>was</i> a pretty cool bad guy.

Lexmark3200
09-21-2004, 07:01 AM
There are in-depth articles on both hometheaterforum.com AND thedigitalbits.com regarding audio problems on the EX track on Episode IV: New Hope; I do not own these yet, as I am more of a Trek nut than Wars, so I cannot say from experience, but the articles go into detail regarding John Williams' score somehow being "reversed" in the surround channels at certain points, and these dialogue dropouts you speak of; as if whole pieces of dialogue are lost somewhere in the mix itself. Check it out when you get a chance; The Digital Bits even goes as far to say that these problems may warrant exchanges for those who bought it, or for Fox to re-press the discs themselves.

kexodusc
09-21-2004, 07:11 AM
There are in-depth articles on both hometheaterforum.com AND thedigitalbits.com regarding audio problems on the EX track on Episode IV: New Hope; I do not own these yet, as I am more of a Trek nut than Wars, so I cannot say from experience, but the articles go into detail regarding John Williams' score somehow being "reversed" in the surround channels at certain points, and these dialogue dropouts you speak of; as if whole pieces of dialogue are lost somewhere in the mix itself. Check it out when you get a chance; The Digital Bits even goes as far to say that these problems may warrant exchanges for those who bought it, or for Fox to re-press the discs themselves.

Hmm, curious...I'll have to look into it. I hadn't noticed anything reversed in the music, but wasn't listening for it. And if they can repair these dialogue nuances, even better.
I've heard many re-mastered DVD's with similar problems though, I just attributed it to age and the limits of modern studios...It's not nearly as bad as some movies, and you I only noticed it when the voices would all of a sudden return to normal.

I don't consider myself a Star Wars nut per se, I like just about any sci-fi movie (except maybe Battlefield Earth, Wing Commander, and anything Tim Burton touches).

Anyhoo, thanks for the tip Lex!!! :)

Lexmark3200
09-21-2004, 07:26 AM
Hmm, curious...I'll have to look into it. I hadn't noticed anything reversed in the music, but wasn't listening for it. And if they can repair these dialogue nuances, even better.
I've heard many re-mastered DVD's with similar problems though, I just attributed it to age and the limits of modern studios...It's not nearly as bad as some movies, and you I only noticed it when the voices would all of a sudden return to normal.

I don't consider myself a Star Wars nut per se, I like just about any sci-fi movie (except maybe Battlefield Earth, Wing Commander, and anything Tim Burton touches).

Anyhoo, thanks for the tip Lex!!! :)

No problemo....figured I would point out that there were concerns about the audio on this Episode IV (which I think sounds silly --- just call it STAR WARS like they used to!) disc.

I know what you mean about remastered material; my "Predator Collector's Edition" is like this, where the audio, while loud and fresh sounding in DTS mode, just sounds uneven in quality and has continuous dialogue and effects dropouts; like machine gun fire would fill the front soundstage and then get lost somwhere in the two front channels and get very odd-sounding; its weird, but its there.

Dusty Chalk
09-21-2004, 08:39 AM
The thing that bugged me about Episodes 1 and 2 was that the "action" sequences -- the pod race, the underwater creatures, the war with those fighter thingies and the bubbles, the part where they're rescuing the Natalie Portman character in the arena -- is that they felt like a video game. And when I played the video game (yes, I did), they (the movie scenes) felt like a setup for the video game. Whereas in the older movies, they felt like action sequences conducive to a storyline within a movie -- "oh, dear, they're in trouble, I hope they get away", "they're at war, look at all those X-wing fighters!", etc. It just felt smoother, like it was a natural extension of the plot in an action movie. In the newer films, they just felt gratuitous.

And WRT Greedo shooting and missing -- how can you miss at such close range? That's ridiculous.

kexodusc
09-21-2004, 09:01 AM
The thing that bugged me about Episodes 1 and 2 was that the "action" sequences -- the pod race, the underwater creatures, the war with those fighter thingies and the bubbles, the part where they're rescuing the Natalie Portman character in the arena -- is that they felt like a video game. And when I played the video game (yes, I did), they (the movie scenes) felt like a setup for the video game. Whereas in the older movies, they felt like action sequences conducive to a storyline within a movie -- "oh, dear, they're in trouble, I hope they get away", "they're at war, look at all those X-wing fighters!", etc. It just felt smoother, like it was a natural extension of the plot in an action movie. In the newer films, they just felt gratuitous.

And WRT Greedo shooting and missing -- how can you miss at such close range? That's ridiculous.
That's interesting Dusty...there were a few scenes in Ep. 2 with Yoda that didn't quite look real enough for me, but for the most part I really think the goofy costumes and archaic special effects of the originals were improved.(though I do love a good muppet from time to time). I try not to judge movies by the effects, but it is hard. I have a feeling the Matrix would have been brutal in 1986.

I think in all, what I've come to realize it that the new Star Wars movies aren't so bad, but rather, the old ones weren't as good as I always remembered. As such, they were on an impossible pedestal that no movie could ever reach for many fans and critics. If the originals they were released today, they would be the new ones. Back in the 70's though, if it wasn't Disney, it wasn't made for kids (which is who Lucas said all along the story was mostly geared for). As such, they were revolutionary.
By 4, 5, and 6 movies, only a devoted fan will still appreciate a genre. Don't think I could sit through Tolkein's Silmarillion without drawing unfair comparisons either.

Lexmark3200
09-21-2004, 09:32 AM
The thing that bugged me about Episodes 1 and 2 was that the "action" sequences -- the pod race, the underwater creatures, the war with those fighter thingies and the bubbles, the part where they're rescuing the Natalie Portman character in the arena -- is that they felt like a video game. And when I played the video game (yes, I did), they (the movie scenes) felt like a setup for the video game. Whereas in the older movies, they felt like action sequences conducive to a storyline within a movie -- "oh, dear, they're in trouble, I hope they get away", "they're at war, look at all those X-wing fighters!", etc. It just felt smoother, like it was a natural extension of the plot in an action movie. In the newer films, they just felt gratuitous.

And WRT Greedo shooting and missing -- how can you miss at such close range? That's ridiculous.

Natalie Portman was simply eye candy for these prequels, as is every half-naked chick that is being cast in films to satisfy the cravings of the male section of this new generation; I mean, she is a great looking piece of ass, dont get me wrong, but shots of her in Episode II with her shirt half-ripped to show her perfect flat stomach, I mean come on.....is that REALLY what Star Wars is all about? It was simply eye candy, no more, no less. I dont even consider the prequels --- Episodes I and II --- Science Fiction; they are more like direct-digital transfers for pure eye candy for our home theater displays --- they are showpieces for the digital age, not really ultimate sci fi storytelling at its finest or most classic.

Now, dont get me wrong --- I use Attack Of The Clones as much as the next guy to show off my theater; the Dolby EX track is amazing (especially in the bass department) and the soundstage is rich if a bit soft in the score....I just think Portman's role in all of it was simple window dressing; since when does the Star Wars world involve real hot chicks with sexy bodies and belly shirts, as we horny males are subjected to each day at our local shopping malls?

Lexmark3200
09-21-2004, 09:41 AM
That's interesting Dusty...there were a few scenes in Ep. 2 with Yoda that didn't quite look real enough for me, but for the most part I really think the goofy costumes and archaic special effects of the originals were improved.(though I do love a good muppet from time to time). I try not to judge movies by the effects, but it is hard. I have a feeling the Matrix would have been brutal in 1986.

I think in all, what I've come to realize it that the new Star Wars movies aren't so bad, but rather, the old ones weren't as good as I always remembered. As such, they were on an impossible pedestal that no movie could ever reach for many fans and critics. If the originals they were released today, they would be the new ones. Back in the 70's though, if it wasn't Disney, it wasn't made for kids (which is who Lucas said all along the story was mostly geared for). As such, they were revolutionary.
By 4, 5, and 6 movies, only a devoted fan will still appreciate a genre. Don't think I could sit through Tolkein's Silmarillion without drawing unfair comparisons either.

I think the best that can be said here is that as we get older (I am at the ripe ole number of 31), most every single film we remember from our youth just doesnt have the same impact at all; this seems to be happening with every single older film I sit down with, some of which I paid a lot of money to have on DVD. I used to be a big fan, as a kid, of the "Airport" disaster films, as cheesy as they were, and watching them on DVD in the collection Universal put together of all of them, they just didnt "do it" for me like they used to; in fact, they seemed rather silly. Seems like a waste of money for the DVD box set now in hindsight.

I recently purchased "Police Academy 2" on DVD, after pondering whether or not to buy the entire Police Academy Collection set of all the films, because I was a fan of this series as a kid, too...watching part 2 the other night, all the gags and comedy just didnt seem to grab me or make me laugh anymore....it was downright stupid. This is happening with many films and collections I am buying on DVD; they just dont have the impact they used to have. Boy am I glad I didnt spend 60 bucks on that Police Academy collection...

And thats probably what is going to stop me, ultimately, from getting this Star Wars box set....sure, I own Episode II by itself, but I can watch that simply for the impact it gives me on my home theater....I think the original film trilogy just wont play back for me with the same magic it had when I was a kid. I dont even own Episode I (not anything really to do with whats being discussed here), but Im looking forward to III, where Anakin finally has to become Vader. Should be interesting.

Ultimately, it seems like certain films have a feel to them almost as if they ONLY belong being watched in the time they were created in; like, for me, Police Academy films only seemed to be funny when I was younger and me and my cousin used to watch the infamous shower scene with Mauzer when his hands get stuck to his head over and over and over on my VHS copy of part 2; now, that stuff doesnt seem entertaining or funny anymore.

But then, there are older films that just stand the test of time and you can pretty much enjoy them at any age, at any point in your life. I find this with the original "Exorcist", "Jurassic Park", "JFK", "GoodFellas", "Scarface" and films like that.You never really sit down with films like The Exorcist and GoodFellas and say "I just dont get this....this is so not entertaining...." because you are entertained by these films almost each time they are taken off the shelf. Although, I have to admit to watching Scarface just one too many times and thinking, when I first bought this new Anniversary DVD, "yeah, this film was cool the first 100 times I watched it....and now...well...."

kexodusc
09-21-2004, 10:52 AM
I think you really hit the nail there, Lex...
There are some movies that just lose their impact, and then there are those that I've grown into...The Godfathers weren't something I really appreciated until I was 20 or so. ET comes to mind as being a huge, huge letdown now when I watch it...hard to remember what all the fuss was about.
Same with Batman...I remember Batman as being the first huge corporate movie that sold goofy cups and toys at McDonald's etc...now I just hate it.

Scarface suffers from Star Wars likey symptoms too...it was a bit groundbreaking at the time, but there've been so many similar and arguably better movies along those lines that it's lost a little something...Thank god for all those legendary one-liners though...

Lexmark3200
09-21-2004, 11:56 AM
I think you really hit the nail there, Lex...
There are some movies that just lose their impact, and then there are those that I've grown into...The Godfathers weren't something I really appreciated until I was 20 or so. ET comes to mind as being a huge, huge letdown now when I watch it...hard to remember what all the fuss was about.
Same with Batman...I remember Batman as being the first huge corporate movie that sold goofy cups and toys at McDonald's etc...now I just hate it.

Scarface suffers from Star Wars likey symptoms too...it was a bit groundbreaking at the time, but there've been so many similar and arguably better movies along those lines that it's lost a little something...Thank god for all those legendary one-liners though...

Agreed, totally. Scarface has some classic one liners..."Who you callin' a spic, you white piece of bread?"

Woochifer
09-21-2004, 12:51 PM
I just picked up my copy of the trilogy on my way to work (Fry's Electronics was selling it for $36 today only), so I'll see how it all fits.

I think the main thing that people are complaining about is that Lucas decided to release the trilogy without making available any version of the original movies. He keeps insisting that as far as he's concerned, the original films don't exist anymore. For people who grew up with the original trilogy, the original trilogy is what counts and what matters, warts and all. It would be as if a band decided to keep rerecording their best albums, and keep the original versions that fans first enjoyed locked up and unavailable.

With ET, the original plan was to release only the 20th anniversary edition, but after fans raised a stink, the DVD got released with both versions available. Lucas seems oblivious and almost antagonistic to his fan base. But, the thing is that as a cultural icon, Star Wars is bigger than just Lucas. He just happens to own the rights, so he sees fit to keep tinkering with it. For one thing, I'll never refer to the first movie as "A New Hope" since that tagline didn't even get inserted into the opening crawl until later rereleases. When a movie gets out there, how the fans perceive its value goes beyond the control of one guy. Lucas can try and convince us that new digital effects and tinkering with the plot lines and dialog are a good thing, but IMO that doesn't necessarily improve upon what a lot of people already regarded as their all-time favorite.

Also, gotta disagree with you about Episodes I and II. Both of those movies have been big time letdowns because Lucas lost track of what endeared the original trilogy to its fans -- the simple fact that we cared about the main characters and the fate of their quests. Young Obi Wan, Anakin, Padme -- if any one of those characters got killed, I would not have cared. If the trade federation in Episode I had prevailed, I would not have cared.

And the plotlines have gotten so convoluted that they have no clear purpose other than to advance all the plot strings up to Episode IV. In his effort to make the entire six-episode serial fit together cohesively, Lucas forgot that he still needs to make a decent standalone movie. I mean, try summarizing the plots for Phantom Menace versus Star Wars. Star Wars is about a ragtag group of adventurers who rescue a princess and defeat an evil empire. Phantom Menace is about a trade dispute, some young kid with a lot of karma, and a big battle to break a blockade that ends with the kid accidentally saving the day.

The original movie was far from perfect, but taken in the context of its time, it was groundbreaking. And the movie was simply fun.

Like everyone, I'm buying the trilogy because I just love these films. I appreciate that they did the necessary restoration work on it, and it's finally available on DVD. But, I can't help but think that the thing got rushed out due to piracy fears. I'm reading accounts about how the soundtrack in Star Wars got reversed in the surrounds with the music, and some of the remixing made some not so well advised changes. I guess I'll see when I fire up the system tonight.

Also, one thing about the Godfather trilogy, the picture quality on that DVD set has been a pretty controversial topic. I read that the recently released single-disc version of the first movie was done by a different mastering house and the look is different from the boxed set, which was done by Coppola's mastering facility.

Woochifer
09-21-2004, 01:13 PM
I think you really hit the nail there, Lex...
There are some movies that just lose their impact, and then there are those that I've grown into...The Godfathers weren't something I really appreciated until I was 20 or so. ET comes to mind as being a huge, huge letdown now when I watch it...hard to remember what all the fuss was about.
Same with Batman...I remember Batman as being the first huge corporate movie that sold goofy cups and toys at McDonald's etc...now I just hate it.

Scarface suffers from Star Wars likey symptoms too...it was a bit groundbreaking at the time, but there've been so many similar and arguably better movies along those lines that it's lost a little something...Thank god for all those legendary one-liners though...

Well, I think that's how a lot of it works out. "Singin' In The Rain" was a flop when it initially came out, and "American In Paris" got the big box office and won Best Picture. In the contemporary revisionist thinking, "Singin' In The Rain" is now typically regarded among the greatest musicals ever, while "American In Paris" has slipped in stature.

It's funny how revisionist thinking goes. I think Star Wars will always be regarded as a fun movie, though more people are now apt to pick on its flaws. Nowadays, a lot of people say that "Empire Strikes Back" is better than the original "Star Wars". But, within the trilogy, I think that "Empire Strikes Back" is the weakest as a standalone movie simply because it has no backstory and no resolution. Within the context of the completed trilogy, an argument can be made that it's the strongest movie in the series in regard to character and thematic development. I remember when Empire came out, a lot of people did not like it at all because it left so many unresolved plot threads at the conclusion. Now, I see a lot of reviewers taking shots at "Return of the Jedi", but that film was needed in order to put Empire in the correct context.

I haven't seen Batman in years, but I have a different recollection of the whole groundswell of hype that led up to its release. Sure, the merchandising tie-ins were a bit much, but more so than just about any other movie up to that point, that movie had a lot of buzz and people targeting the release date on their calendar. In a way though, that movie had to have that entire campaign tied to it because beforehand most the public's perception of Batman was shaped by the 1960s TV series. (The movie was molded by Frank Miller's Dark Knight graphic novel from 1986, which was the darker vision of Batman) If Warner did not market it the way that they did, nobody would have known how different the Tim Burton film was from the BIFF POW WHAM Adam West version. Personally, I liked the movie, but it has not held up well through repeated viewing.

Scarface is another strange little phenomenon. The one-liners in that movie are so memorable that they overwhelm the rest of the movie. I enjoy the movie in bits and pieces, but not sitting through the whole thing. Scarface also didn't do too well at the box office when it first came out, and it was lambasted by reviewers initially. But, it was very influential and eventually championed by people who saw it on TV and video.

kexodusc
09-21-2004, 01:46 PM
But, the thing is that as a cultural icon, Star Wars is bigger than just Lucas. He just happens to own the rights, so he sees fit to keep tinkering with it. For one thing, I'll never refer to the first movie as "A New Hope" since that tagline didn't even get inserted into the opening crawl until later rereleases. When a movie gets out there, how the fans perceive its value goes beyond the control of one guy. Lucas can try and convince us that new digital effects and tinkering with the plot lines and dialog are a good thing, but IMO that doesn't necessarily improve upon what a lot of people already regarded as their all-time favorite.

Hmmm, I agree with this assessment. I would add that if the I was to grade the original movies out of 100, the laterations might have the effect of 1 point or 2 for me...They're nice eye candy, but don't change the story, or do damage at all in my opinion. Just like Wing Commander's eye candy didn't win it any Oscars though (to my knowledge), the new eye candy stuff isn't what the movie's about though.



Also, gotta disagree with you about Episodes I and II. Both of those movies have been big time letdowns because Lucas lost track of what endeared the original trilogy to its fans -- the simple fact that we cared about the main characters and the fate of their quests. Young Obi Wan, Anakin, Padme -- if any one of those characters got killed, I would not have cared. If the trade federation in Episode I had prevailed, I would not have cared.
I think you've approached it the wrong way. Lucas didn't lose track of anything. He held the course, stuck to what he claims was THE STORY, and told it as it is. If it isn't as interesting, doesn't have the same character appeal, then it just doesn't. I would mention that they never came with any suggestion or implication that they would be "better" than the original. Just more of the genre he created. What's worse, everyone knows the ending, and much of the plot and characters to begin with. I always approached the new films as "There's the old Star Wars trilogy and for those who asked for more, here's the back story of the rise and fall of one of the characters, the main villian, from the classic series". I've always presumed that if it was the better story, it would have been told first. It wasn't. Given what it was intended to accomplish, in hindsight, I think it's done that quite well.



And the plotlines have gotten so convoluted that they have no clear purpose other than to advance all the plot strings up to Episode IV.
What more could it have ever possibly have been intended for...it's a "Prequel"?
In my opinion that grandness and complexity of the story offer more of Lucas' imagination. As I've aged, the Original Trilogy's plot is rather primitive, it's a bit refreshing to see some of the universe expanded. The characters aren't quite as intersting, but, oh well.



In his effort to make the entire six-episode serial fit together cohesively, Lucas forgot that he still needs to make a decent standalone movie. I mean, try summarizing the plots for Phantom Menace versus Star Wars. Star Wars is about a ragtag group of adventurers who rescue a princess and defeat an evil empire. Phantom Menace is about a trade dispute, some young kid with a lot of karma, and a big battle to break a blockade that ends with the kid accidentally saving the day.

Yes, you are right here. However, artistically, the prequels are a single story told in three parts without compromise. "Star Wars" was a stand alone movie, the other two would work incredibly poor as stand alones. Every bit as bad as Ep I and II. In fact, Star Wars and ROTJ have basically the exact same plot if I was to break it down like you have.


The original movie was far from perfect, but taken in the context of its time, it was groundbreaking. And the movie was simply fun.
Yes, but I can't help but think if it wasn't released until 1999, it would be just another Sci-Fi movie, and not the cultural icon it has become.
[/QUOTE]

There are a few characters I'm interested in in the Prequel Trilogy, oddly enough, Obi, and Padme aren't them...I'm more curious about the Jedi's and the Sith...the rise of the emprie, where the Jedi went, etc...

You are right though, Wooch. The Prequel Trilogy does demand a longer attention span, has a far more intricate plot and needs to be viewed much like Lord of the Rings, 3 parts of 1 story. To me, they aren't anywhere near as great as the originals, but all in all, they aren't nearly as bad as I'd previously written them off as.

As with anything that enjoys success, after so much of it, it sort of loses mass appeal and attracts only those most loyal to it. I think everyone approached the Prequels from the point of view "this has to be as good as the original, or it sucks", not "this is the history behind the classic tale for those who've been begging for the last 20 years to have more."
It's almost like Star Trek, in that the genre became bigger than the original story. I'm glad Lucas is stopping with 6 films before it becomes too saturated. I'm also happy for the fanatics that can continue to get more of what they like.

As a musician (and dare I say artist) I really respect Lucas for not just compromising the story to whatever everyone wanted to see. He has a story and he's sticking with it. In the music world, if he did compromise the story lines just to sell better, he'd have been reamed big time.

Any artist will tell you that many of their works are constantly evolving. As much as I love the original trilogy, I have no problem conceding these incredibly minor changes to Lucas. If the suck, they suck. If Jar-Jar becomes Luke's father in ROTJ, then I won't buy the HD-DVD version or whatever. I can still enjoy the original (though only on VHS, grr).

recoveryone
09-21-2004, 04:21 PM
WOW, you guys went way down the road on your reviews and comments. I was just going to say that I enjoyed the DVD and the sound mix was a big improvement, it made me feel like I was watching the movie for the first time again. For me, hearing the little small things pulls you into the movie..IE: C3PO feet walking in the sand and the chess game, you hear them click the buttoms to make each piece move. little things like that is what I listen for. The Transfer was real nice especially when you see Luke looking off into the sky with the Moon and setting sun. I'm gogin to watch the other ones later and I'll come back and add my 2cents.

kexodusc
09-21-2004, 04:43 PM
The "commentary tracks" have tons of interesting tidbits of info...normally I wouldn't watch 6 hours plus of directors/crew commentary, but I might make an exception in this case...
Finished Empire tonight...there is a slight improvement all the way in this film...3 years is a long time in Hollywood I guess...bigger budget, newer technologies. This DVD was top notch.
And the newly revised scenes took care of my biggest personal beef with the original trilogy...I won't spoil it here.

It really is like watching it all over again for the first time. My VHS tapers were all but worn out and were only so-so anyway...I'm noticing quite a few new things in the scenery.

I must admit, 25 years later these still don't look "dated".

Dusty Chalk
09-21-2004, 07:00 PM
I just think Portman's role in all of it was simple window dressing; since when does the Star Wars world involve real hot chicks with sexy bodies and belly shirts, as we horny males are subjected to each day at our local shopping malls?Actually, since the first episode, in which Princess Leia (Carry Fischer/Fisher/?sp) went braless.

And in regards to the rest of the discussion as to how the movies aged -- I am going to sound like a hipocrite, but I'm just defending a concept, not the movies -- it's not really a fair comparison. To see a movie for the first time is nothing like seeing it for the second. "Luke...I am your father." can only punch you in the gut and shock you once, after that, it's just echos of the original sympathy that you felt for Luke.

Also, WRT f/x -- it was cutting edge at the time -- sort of like the Matrix was when it came out. And yes, the story is kind of simple, but again, what's wrong with a simple story line if it's a classic -- good vs. evil, hot young stud falls for princess, risks life, wins. The ones where there are lots of twists and turns have their own problems -- they only work a few times, themselves. I mean, how many times can you watch Blood Simple...alright, bad example, I can watch that one repeatedly, too. But how about Body Double...alright, another bad example...okay, here's one: how many times can you watch Dead Man's Curve? Heh-heh.

I do agree that movies aren't as good as we remember them being. I used to cite Kentucky Fried Movie as the funniest movie ever, and list them in lists, based solely on my memory of it. Then I rewatched it. OMG, it was so juvenile, gutter humour, the works. I immediately scratched it off my "favourites" list. It's still funny, mind you, just not as funny as I remember it being. Yup, geezin' sucks.

WARNING: SCARFACE SPOILER FOLLOWS

Scarface is still an intense movie, I haven't seen any movie where a character went out with a bang the way Stallone's did. So I have to completely disagree that it's not as good a movie as it used to be.

Lexmark3200
09-21-2004, 08:08 PM
Actually, since the first episode, in which Princess Leia (Carry Fischer/Fisher/?sp) went braless.

And in regards to the rest of the discussion as to how the movies aged -- I am going to sound like a hipocrite, but I'm just defending a concept, not the movies -- it's not really a fair comparison. To see a movie for the first time is nothing like seeing it for the second. "Luke...I am your father." can only punch you in the gut and shock you once, after that, it's just echos of the original sympathy that you felt for Luke.

Also, WRT f/x -- it was cutting edge at the time -- sort of like the Matrix was when it came out. And yes, the story is kind of simple, but again, what's wrong with a simple story line if it's a classic -- good vs. evil, hot young stud falls for princess, risks life, wins. The ones where there are lots of twists and turns have their own problems -- they only work a few times, themselves. I mean, how many times can you watch Blood Simple...alright, bad example, I can watch that one repeatedly, too. But how about Body Double...alright, another bad example...okay, here's one: how many times can you watch Dead Man's Curve? Heh-heh.

I do agree that movies aren't as good as we remember them being. I used to cite Kentucky Fried Movie as the funniest movie ever, and list them in lists, based solely on my memory of it. Then I rewatched it. OMG, it was so juvenile, gutter humour, the works. I immediately scratched it off my "favourites" list. It's still funny, mind you, just not as funny as I remember it being. Yup, geezin' sucks.

WARNING: SCARFACE SPOILER FOLLOWS

Scarface is still an intense movie, I haven't seen any movie where a character went out with a bang the way Stallone's did. So I have to completely disagree that it's not as good a movie as it used to be.

Sure, Carrie Fisher may have gone braless, but I still contend this shouldnt be the essence of sci fi (although those ultra short skirts of the female officers in the original Star Trek would have you thinking otherwise, too); my point is that by the time Episodes I and II came around, it became pure teenage horny-satisfying skin shows on the part of Portman; this chick just SEEMS too sexy for a Star Wars plot, understand? I mean, its just ridiculous....she just HAD to have her top ripped in half so we see her perfect stomach at the end of Attack of the Clones? That just HAPPENED to rip just in that spot so we can see her abs? This was nothing but for WINDOW DRESSING and eye candy. Like every other film released today featuring, and relating to, really hot chicks.

What are you talking about with regard to Scarface and Stallone? Do you mean Pacino? Stallone wasnt even in Scarface....and ask any self respecting fan, like I have been since the film was released in 83/84.....AFTER 200 times watching it, it loses the magic....NOT COMPLETELY, but that loss is there. The film STILL belongs in the list of the best films of all time, without question.

Yeah, getting old does suck.....seems so many films now are just stupid that used to entertain the **** out of me as a kid....Porkys, Police Academy, Stewardess School....there are even horror and thriller films that just dont excite me anymore since Im older; I bought them for my collection but often wonder, after watching them under a scruitinizing eye, what the hell was so appealing about them after all. Its kinda depressing.

eisforelectronic
09-22-2004, 03:27 AM
I tend to agree with the thought that in reality nothing has changed but our perceptions. Ep I and II were not better or worse than the original trilogy, they were the same. The prequels seem to affect young children the same way the originals affected us at that age, therefore my assumption must be that these movies simply have not evolved. I think if there were a way to forget 20+ years of expectation and and other life experience, we could all simply enjoy a 6 part sci-fi epic. Don't you wonder what it would be like to be a kid again and actually watch the whole thing in order without any preconceived notions?

kexodusc
09-22-2004, 06:01 AM
I tend to agree with the thought that in reality nothing has changed but our perceptions. Ep I and II were not better or worse than the original trilogy, they were the same. The prequels seem to affect young children the same way the originals affected us at that age, therefore my assumption must be that these movies simply have not evolved. I think if there were a way to forget 20+ years of expectation and and other life experience, we could all simply enjoy a 6 part sci-fi epic. Don't you wonder what it would be like to be a kid again and actually watch the whole thing in order without any preconceived notions?

Well said, esforelectronic...That's what I'm coming to realize. There a few boring scenes in all 5 movies and there's a really long one in EP I, but all in all find them all pretty close to each other. The only thing that's changed is me, and my tastes over time.

As for Natalie Portman being eye candy...WTF??? She's not bad looking, but I'd hardly consider Amidala the T n' A appeal of Star Wars...
To be honest, I don't think there is any window dressing, eye candy, sex appeal, etc...

Geez, the Harry Potter movies have more T n' A than Star Wars...except ROTJ, Carrie Fisher was something else!

Worf101
09-22-2004, 06:56 AM
is gonna convince me that Episode I wasn't one of the worst movies made in the history of mankind. Jar Jar Binks will go down in history as one of the most infamous caricatures (sp) in film history. I won't belabor it, I won't analyse it. The film stunk to its core and everyone involved should be ashamed of themselves. If I'd been in a room with Lucas after first viewing that chite I'da punched him.

Da Worfster :mad:

kexodusc
09-22-2004, 07:05 AM
is gonna convince me that Episode I wasn't one of the worst movies made in the history of mankind. Jar Jar Binks will go down in history as one of the most infamous caricatures (sp) in film history. I won't belabor it, I won't analyse it. The film stunk to its core and everyone involved should be ashamed of themselves. If I'd been in a room with Lucas after first viewing that chite I'da punched him.

Da Worfster :mad:


You never saw "Wing Commander", eh worfster?

Sir Terrence the Terrible
09-22-2004, 09:51 AM
is gonna convince me that Episode I wasn't one of the worst movies made in the history of mankind. Jar Jar Binks will go down in history as one of the most infamous caricatures (sp) in film history. I won't belabor it, I won't analyse it. The film stunk to its core and everyone involved should be ashamed of themselves. If I'd been in a room with Lucas after first viewing that chite I'da punched him.

Da Worfster :mad:

Worf the angry meister, perhaps I should give you back the fine upstate beer I filched from ya. I rather liked the movie(and don't punch me!). Okay, so jar jar was jar jaring my senses, overall I was thoroughly entertained.(now you can punch me..as I run from the room!)

kexodusc
09-22-2004, 10:16 AM
Worf the angry meister, perhaps I should give you back the fine upstate beer I filched from ya. I rather liked the movie(and don't punch me!). Okay, so jar jar was jar jaring my senses, overall I was thoroughly entertained.(now you can punch me..as I run from the room!)
Wow, so I'm not the only one...yeah, it wasn't necessarily better than the originals...but it sure beat alot of late 90's movies.
Why doesn't anybody gripe about Star Trek: Insurrection?
Now THAT was a let down (and I still kinda liked it).

Dusty Chalk
09-22-2004, 10:23 AM
Sure, Carrie Fisher may have gone braless, but I still contend this shouldnt be the essence of sci fiAnd I agree with the criticism that I think you're overstating the importance of her bare midriff. I don't think that was the essence of the movie, neither. Perhaps you're just a dirty old man, easily distracted by visible flesh? Not that there's anything wrong with that. I'm a dirtier, older man.
What are you talking about with regard to Scarface and Stallone? Do you mean Pacino?Um...yeah...they all look the same to me.

Don't flame me for the statement -- I say it with tongue firmly in cheek -- I can't believe I said Stallone -- one of them can act, the other can't.

Lexmark3200
09-22-2004, 11:20 AM
Well said, esforelectronic...That's what I'm coming to realize. There a few boring scenes in all 5 movies and there's a really long one in EP I, but all in all find them all pretty close to each other. The only thing that's changed is me, and my tastes over time.

As for Natalie Portman being eye candy...WTF??? She's not bad looking, but I'd hardly consider Amidala the T n' A appeal of Star Wars...
To be honest, I don't think there is any window dressing, eye candy, sex appeal, etc...

Geez, the Harry Potter movies have more T n' A than Star Wars...except ROTJ, Carrie Fisher was something else!


NATALIE PORTMAN ISNT HOT? Man, I need to re-think this one....or perhaps YOU do...you dont think her character was unnecessary tits and ass in this film? You're kidding, right?

Lexmark3200
09-22-2004, 11:26 AM
And I agree with the criticism that I think you're overstating the importance of her bare midriff. I don't think that was the essence of the movie, neither. Perhaps you're just a dirty old man, easily distracted by visible flesh? Not that there's anything wrong with that. I'm a dirtier, older man.Um...yeah...they all look the same to me.

Don't flame me for the statement -- I say it with tongue firmly in cheek -- I can't believe I said Stallone -- one of them can act, the other can't.


I never said her midriff was the essence of the film; I was asking "is that what Star Wars should really be about?" And I am stating that her bare midriff and tight ab showings were completely unnecessary in that film; completely. It is to 100 percent cater to the younger generation that would watch the prequels and have watched the prequels; again, completely unnecessary. Im distrated by visible flesh? Well, who wouldnt be with that unnecessary flashing bout continuoulsy exploding in our faces? It was ridiculously unnecessary because, again, we are living in an MTV age of showing naked flesh everywhere. Toni Braxton didnt help by going to all those awards ceremonies with see through dresses on; I think thats what started it. Leaving nothing to the immagination.

Not gonna flame you on that Scarface issue, but.....Stallone and Pacino really dont "look alike"; I dont know if you are a diehard Scarface fan, as there are LEGIONS of them out there, but fans would never confuse these two guys' work.

kexodusc
09-22-2004, 11:34 AM
Nope, I think Portman's a lovely looking woman...but she's not exactly your typical Holywood TNA material.
And quite honestly, a bloody back, bony rib, or chiseled ab, aren't exactly what I look for in a woman.
I like well rounded curves and little sign of skeletal structure. The whole anorexic, little-boyish holywood woman thing isn't really for me.

Now, maybe if she was wearing Leia's outfit from Jabba's barge in ROTJ we'd be talking...as it is, a rather plain white jumpsuit just ain't cutting it.

Worf101
09-22-2004, 11:39 AM
You never saw "Wing Commander", eh worfster?

It wasn't pretending to be anything that it wasn't which was a movie spin-off of a computer game. For what it was, for all that it was, I didn't mind it. I didn't leave the theatre feeling insulted or raped the way I did after Episode I. I don't think I have to explain to anyone why I found Jar Jar Binks insulting to me as an African American. And before you all start screaming, I'm not some thin skinned relic from the 60's, I can laugh at myself and often do here and in print!!! All that summua***** needed was some chicken and watermelon hanging from his ears to complete the dirty deed.

As far as the rape was concerned.... I spent hours of time and much money taking myself and some kids from the local community center to see that tripe. I was robbed AND raped. Sigh...

Da Worfster :(

eqm
09-22-2004, 11:49 AM
[QUOTE=kexodusc]
Same with Batman...I remember Batman as being the first huge corporate movie that sold goofy cups and toys at McDonald's etc...now I just hate it.QUOTE]

I had some pretty cool "Dukes of Hazzard" kid's meal boxes from hardee's (carl's jr.) back in the day....even had some stickers on the inside to decorate the plastic car/burger box.

eqm
09-22-2004, 11:58 AM
Also, one thing about the Godfather trilogy, the picture quality on that DVD set has been a pretty controversial topic. I read that the recently released single-disc version of the first movie was done by a different mastering house and the look is different from the boxed set, which was done by Coppola's mastering facility.

Which one is supposed to look better? I was thinking about getting the 1st and 2nd as singles, w/o having to get the box set. Depending on what looks the best, however....

Sir Terrence the Terrible
09-22-2004, 03:14 PM
I don't think I have to explain to anyone why I found Jar Jar Binks insulting to me as an African American. And before you all start screaming, I'm not some thin skinned relic from the 60's, I can laugh at myself and often do here and in print!!! All that summua***** needed was some chicken and watermelon hanging from his ears to complete the dirty deed.

As far as the rape was concerned.... I spent hours of time and much money taking myself and some kids from the local community center to see that tripe. I was robbed AND raped. Sigh...

Da Worfster :(

Chicken and watermelon hanging from his ears. Damn Worf, that is quite a visual. I know how you feel, the movie Atlantis portrayed the puerto rican girl as a hard core, hard personality, tomboy type girl. I just hated that. I have dated the hard core type, but they didn't have a hard personality, and they certainly weren't tomboyish.

Jeeze, none of the relics of the 60's I know are thinned skinned!!!

Woochifer
09-22-2004, 03:15 PM
Which one is supposed to look better? I was thinking about getting the 1st and 2nd as singles, w/o having to get the box set. Depending on what looks the best, however....

Here's an article that came out last year in the NY Times about problems faced during DVD mastering. The Godfather was cited as an example of something that was getting redone after the first edition already went out.

http://www.unlv.edu/programs/filmarchive/articles/bad_dvds.html

For months, I was reading rumors that the new version was supposed to fix the problems with the original DVD release, but I don't know for sure if this actually happened. I have not seen too many reviews of the single-disc Godfather DVD (the boxed set however was reviewed by every DVD site, and heavily debated), and I haven't seen anyone post any comparisons between the two versions. One review that I read speculated that the newer one used a higher bitrate, but they did not do an A/B comparison. According to that NY Times article, Lowry Digital was hired to do a new Godfather transfer, and they're the same company that just did the Star Wars trilogy, which IMO is a very well done set visually. Keep in mind that the original boxed set was done by American Zoetrope's mastering facility and approved by Coppola, so it might be more the look that he was looking for.

Woochifer
09-22-2004, 03:30 PM
All that summua***** needed was some chicken and watermelon hanging from his ears to complete the dirty deed.
Da Worfster :(

Sheesh Worf! You got it all wrong! Jar Jar could only be complete with a king-sized blunt in his beak, dreadlocks sprouting from all his pods, voodoo dolls in his den, and offering up junk food and tokes from his bong pipe while bounding the galaxy stoned with the Jedi rastafarians!

Man oh man, Binks with chicken and watermelon ... that's about as ridiculous as greedy slanteyed space aliens wearing mandarin collars and speaking with "oriental" accents! Hmmm, I guess that was Episode I, wasn't it?

dean_martin
09-22-2004, 03:32 PM
[QUOTE=kexodusc]
Same with Batman...I remember Batman as being the first huge corporate movie that sold goofy cups and toys at McDonald's etc...now I just hate it.QUOTE]

I had some pretty cool "Dukes of Hazzard" kid's meal boxes from hardee's (carl's jr.) back in the day....even had some stickers on the inside to decorate the plastic car/burger box.


Hey, what do you think of a Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson "Dukes of Hazzard"?

As for the Natalie Portman debate. I thought her acting was sooooo lifeless and boring in Eps I & II. I thought her acting was much better in "The Professional."

Geoffcin
09-22-2004, 03:37 PM
NATALIE PORTMAN ISNT HOT? Man, I need to re-think this one....or perhaps YOU do...you dont think her character was unnecessary tits and ass in this film? You're kidding, right?

Portman doesn't even have a cleavage! I thought her performance was totally subdued. Even the infamous "rolling in the hay" sceen didn't have any passion in it. Her chemistry with Hayden Christian doesn't hold a candle to what Carrie Fischer & Harrison Ford had in the originals.

You want to see HOT; See Jennifer Garner in Daredevil. Probably the only thing worth watching the move for.

Geoffcin
09-22-2004, 03:56 PM
Wow, so I'm not the only one...yeah, it wasn't necessarily better than the originals...but it sure beat alot of late 90's movies.
Why doesn't anybody gripe about Star Trek: Insurrection?
Now THAT was a let down (and I still kinda liked it).

About Insurrection. But Star Trek movies aren't the icons that Starwars movies are.

The real shift, and it's quite obvious after only a few minutes is that EP 1 & 2 are driven by, and really just vehicles for special effects. This is the same problem that I noticed recently with Sky Captain, and it DOESN'T Work! Lucas are you listening!? For all the FX in the originals the real driving force [pun?] was the characters. Ray guns and Death Stars are cool to use, and blow up, but unless you can care about the characters the movie's not going to "move" you. Even the best actors, when used as props for FX can;t help. For me it all comes down to screenwriting, and it's looking more and more like this is becoming a dying art, at least in most of the FX driven movies I've seen lately.

Worf101
09-22-2004, 07:16 PM
Chicken and watermelon hanging from his ears. Damn Worf, that is quite a visual. I know how you feel, the movie Atlantis portrayed the puerto rican girl as a hard core, hard personality, tomboy type girl. I just hated that. I have dated the hard core type, but they didn't have a hard personality, and they certainly weren't tomboyish.

Jeeze, none of the relics of the 60's I know are thinned skinned!!!

Sigh, guess I'm just still a little miffed at this movie. Didn't mean to rant like that, even though it is my style. :D Hollywood's never been kind to us folks on the fringes. It's gotten better but it ain't there yet. We'll have to talk sometime about P.R. Sister's we've known over the years... Man I feel old. Now, put down Pogue's beer and behave....

Da Worfster :D

Worf101
09-22-2004, 07:19 PM
Sheesh Worf! You got it all wrong! Jar Jar could only be complete with a king-sized blunt in his beak, dreadlocks sprouting from all his pods, voodoo dolls in his den, and offering up junk food and tokes from his bong pipe while bounding the galaxy stoned with the Jedi rastafarians!

Man oh man, Binks with chicken and watermelon ... that's about as ridiculous as greedy slanteyed space aliens wearing mandarin collars and speaking with "oriental" accents! Hmmm, I guess that was Episode I, wasn't it?

Man there was/is a LOT wrong with that movie. I remember now... yes. They sounded like bad imitations of a Chinese Launderer. I rest my case....

Da Worfster :mad:

Lexmark3200
09-22-2004, 08:54 PM
Portman doesn't even have a cleavage! I thought her performance was totally subdued. Even the infamous "rolling in the hay" sceen didn't have any passion in it. Her chemistry with Hayden Christian doesn't hold a candle to what Carrie Fischer & Harrison Ford had in the originals.

You want to see HOT; See Jennifer Garner in Daredevil. Probably the only thing worth watching the move for.


Sure, she doesnt really have much in the breast department, Ill give you that....I just think she's a beautiful girl with a sexy body; and I'll give you Jennifer Gardner, but I must disagree regarding your comment about "the only thing worth watching the film for...." I loved Daredevil.

Dusty Chalk
09-22-2004, 09:40 PM
I still disagree -- it's not fair to downplay Carrie Fischer's sex appeal as not a distraction, and play up Natalie Portman's bare midriff as distracting -- I don't think either was overly overt. I think the same criticism that could be thrust at me (that I over-reacted to minutiae) could be thrust at whoever thought Natalie Portman's bare midriff was distracting.

I'm not saying she's not attractive -- I just don't think they played it up as much as y'all are sayin'.
As for the Natalie Portman debate. I thought her acting was sooooo lifeless and boring in Eps I & II. I thought her acting was much better in "The Professional."Everyone was bad in those movies -- it had no Direction. L, even Samuel L. Jackson couldn't breathe, he was so stifled (no, this is not from an interview, it is purely my reaction to his acting). Easily his worst role ever.

recoveryone
09-23-2004, 06:18 AM
I just viewed ROTJ last nigt and my thoughts were the same on the transfer and sound, but to add my 2cents on the sex appeal. Fisher stole the show on that in that bare all outfit when she was jabba the hut little play toy part. From head to toe she was all that and a bags of chips. (mmmm licking my fingers) :p

eqm
09-23-2004, 08:44 AM
[QUOTE=dean_martin]Hey, what do you think of a Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson "Dukes of Hazzard"?[QUOTE]

yeah...with Jerry Stiller as "Uncle Jesse", Charlize Theron as "Daisy", Burt "Turd Ferguson" Reynolds as "Rosco Pecotrain" (sp?), and Michael Clarke Duncan as "Boss Hogg".

That would be the best movie ever.

dean_martin
09-23-2004, 09:14 AM
[QUOTE=dean_martin]Hey, what do you think of a Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson "Dukes of Hazzard"?[QUOTE]

yeah...with Jerry Stiller as "Uncle Jesse", Charlize Theron as "Daisy", Burt "Turd Ferguson" Reynolds as "Rosco Pecotrain" (sp?), and Michael Clarke Duncan as "Boss Hogg".

That would be the best movie ever.

Hey EQ, I think we have something here. When and to whom are we going to pitch this?

eqm
09-23-2004, 10:33 AM
Hey EQ, I think we have something here. When and to whom are we going to pitch this?

it's a star wars thread...so g. luca$ of course. "EVEN MORE CGI THAN THE ORIGINAL!" I just hope they bring in a cute child character who accidentally drives the car over a canyon and into the place where "them duke boys" are being held. We'll need to contact p-diddy to do redo the waylon jennings theme song.

recoveryone
09-23-2004, 11:22 AM
I was watching ROTJ and I notice at the end that Darth Vader was younger looking in ghost form with long hair like Haden in the new EP2 & 3. Did anyone else catch that???

dean_martin
09-23-2004, 11:54 AM
it's a star wars thread...so g. luca$ of course. "EVEN MORE CGI THAN THE ORIGINAL!" I just hope they bring in a cute child character who accidentally drives the car over a canyon and into the place where "them duke boys" are being held. We'll need to contact p-diddy to do redo the waylon jennings theme song.

Well, EQ, it looks like it's back to the drawing board for us. I just discovered that Warner Bros. has "The Dukes of Hazzard." They've casted Seann William Scott and Johnny Knoxville as them Duke boys and Jessica Simpson as Daisy. I think our casting ideas were better. I mean really, it's Starsky and Hutch in the sticks.

eqm
09-23-2004, 12:39 PM
Well, EQ, it looks like it's back to the drawing board for us. I just discovered that Warner Bros. has "The Dukes of Hazzard." They've casted Seann William Scott and Johnny Knoxville as them Duke boys and Jessica Simpson as Daisy. I think our casting ideas were better. I mean really, it's Starsky and Hutch in the sticks.

maybe we can get that cast to do "A-Team" the movie?

Geoffcin
09-23-2004, 02:43 PM
Sure, she doesnt really have much in the breast department, Ill give you that....I just think she's a beautiful girl with a sexy body; and I'll give you Jennifer Gardner, but I must disagree regarding your comment about "the only thing worth watching the film for...." I loved Daredevil.

She's easy on the eye, but for me it just doesn't reach "hot". Nor do I think that her sex appeal was overly used in the movie.

Daredevil was worth a shot, I haven't added it to my collection yet, but evetually it might wind up here. I don't think it was a "bad" movie. I should have said the BEST thing Daredevil has going for it is Jennifer Garner. I damn near fell outta my chair when she was in that dress!

Woochifer
09-23-2004, 03:55 PM
Okay, now that I've confirmed that the music in the surround channels in the Star Wars DVD is indeed reversed, I think we should let THX know that their "certified" disc with a reversed surround audio track is an inexcusable lapse. If anyone wants to report the defect, THX's DVD problem reporting page is linked below.

http://www.thx.com/mod/products/dvdProbs.html

Also, this is no joke, THX's press release talks about the advanced QC that went into the Star Wars DVD set! Read this if you want a good laugh.

http://www.thx.com/news/20040923A.html

eisforelectronic
09-26-2004, 02:54 AM
Speaking of "Wing Commander", just in case anyone was wondering why Panaka didn't make it from Phantom Menace to Attack of the Clones, it's because he died in Wing Commander, like Shaggy and Fred should have.

By the way, why were they loading torpedos by hand in Wing Commander? And why was there fire coming through the hatch behind them when they were fired?

eqm
09-27-2004, 08:49 AM
[QUOTE=eisforelectronic]Speaking of "Wing Commander", just in case anyone was wondering why Panaka didn't make it from Phantom Menace to Attack of the Clones, it's because he died in Wing Commander, like Shaggy and Fred should have.

[QUOTE]

the first time i saw PM in the theater, my buddy, girlfriend, and I all thought it was captain "BINACA". we thought he probably had the freshest breath in the galaxy. ;)

Mr Peabody
09-27-2004, 07:03 PM
I have been disappointed in remasters of older movies up to this point. One exception was Tron I thought they done a pretty good job with that. Watching Tron after many years it just didn't stand the test of time for me. Back to what I was going to say, I rented Return of The Jedi to see what it sounded like. My thought were it was a long way from Attack of The Killer Clones or Episode One yet it was the best remaster I have yet to hear. I didn't pay enough attention to reversal of channels but I did sense some things out of sync and attributed it to just trying to make an old movie sound modern. Aside from some of the flaws that were detected I also thought the sound effects for the ships were sometimes opposite, the sound went one way when the ship went the other or started in the back and had a drop in sound then ended up in the center channel. I put in the VHS just to see the difference, wow! that really brings home the work that was done on this restoration. For some reason to me though the space bike chase seemed to be more intense or have a sense of the bikes being faster on VHS and it's very obvious that sound effects were added to the DVD. The DVD video is just night and day better than the VHS. My wife thought the VHS had better color but was like being projected in comparison to sharpness. I have no idea why she thought that about the color.

Am I the only person that liked Battlefield Earth? I thought Travolta was outstanding in this movie. What do you rat brains know anyway :)

kexodusc
09-28-2004, 03:21 AM
Mr. Peabody...The reverse channels, and other audio flaws are only being reported on Star Wars (Ep. IV A New Hope, whatever it's called now)...Return of the Jedi should be fine...

I really liked the Tron remaster too...thought the movie has lost my interest.

"Attack of the Killer Clones"...good one..I have the Tomato movies on VHS..
What's even funnier, the final movie is actually called "Revenge of the Sith", and Return of the Jedi was suppose to be called "Revenge of the Jedi"...
So did Lucas rip off the killer tomato franchise, or vice-versa?

Kam
09-28-2004, 10:03 AM
not that i have a problem with either the fisher jabba scene or portman white jumpsuit scene, but i think the main difference is in the quality of storytelling between the two scenes.
leia was put in that outfit by jabba to BE a sexual object to him, that was the point of the outfit, for jabba's gratification. the fact that the audience got the same titilation, while obvious, is secondary to the story. portman was put in that outfit by lucas' wardrobe people to be a sexual object for the kiddies, that was the point of the outfit, the audience's gratification. the audience was the only reason for the titilation.
pretty much like someone else said about the story being a vehicle for the fx vs. the fx just helping to tell the story. it's pretty much prevalant throughout. however, for the record, i am a fan of the bare midriff look and don't mind it.
i wonder if the baby luke in episode 3 is just gonna cry the whole time. watching the movies again, man was he one whiny lil bastard, and everyone still loved him as the hero!

peace
k2