Movies you've seen recently

[Tale]

American works of art belong to the American public; they are part of our cultural history.

 

People who alter or destroy works of art and our cultural heritage for profit or as an exercise of power are barbarians

Today, engineers with their computers can add color to black-and-white movies, change the soundtrack, speed up the pace, and add or subtract material to the philosophical tastes of the copyright holder. Tommorrow, more advanced technology will be able to replace actors with "fresher faces," or alter dialogue and change the movement of the actor's lips to match. It will soon be possible to create a new "original" negative with whatever changes or alterations the copyright holder of the moment desires. The copyright holders, so far, have not been completely diligent in preserving the original negatives of films they control. In order to reconstruct old negatives, many archivists have had to go to Eastern bloc countries where American films have been better preserved.

 

In the future it will become even easier for old negatives to become lost and be "replaced" by new altered negatives. This would be a great loss to our society. Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten.

 

It's a bit out of context, but would you believe it is George Lucas making those statements in 1988?

http://www.toplessrobot.com/2011/09/1988_g..._george_luc.php

[Morgoth]

Well, people change their opinions all the time. Why not Georgie as well?

 

Either way, take it or hate it, but the modern iteration of Star Wars is just wasted potential. But I see why it makes so much profit.

[Walsingham]

Two points:

 

1. Irrespective of his right to do so, attempting to rip up and destroy all trace of the original version which inspired so many people is _bloody weird_.

 

2. It's nonsense to assert that it's George Lucas' movie. It was made by a whole team of creators.

 

Three points:

 

3. What made the original film cool is that you had all the action of a black and white war movie, good guys and bad guys, plus a bunch of 70s kung fu stylings, and the odd special effects candy. Plus some awesome new notions like destroying whole planets. The whole 'kids movie' lie is just because of the franchising potential.

[Blarghagh]

I disagree, Star Wars is his baby. Sure, there are lots of people who worked on it. I recently worked on a short film with a decently prestigious director. He wrote it, he came up with it, he made it happen. I feel happy I was able to help that vision come to life, but there was never any question of whose project it actually was.

 

He is also LITERALLY the owner of Star Wars.

 

American works of art belong to the American public; they are part of our cultural history.

 

People who alter or destroy works of art and our cultural heritage for profit or as an exercise of power are barbarians

Today, engineers with their computers can add color to black-and-white movies, change the soundtrack, speed up the pace, and add or subtract material to the philosophical tastes of the copyright holder. Tommorrow, more advanced technology will be able to replace actors with "fresher faces," or alter dialogue and change the movement of the actor's lips to match. It will soon be possible to create a new "original" negative with whatever changes or alterations the copyright holder of the moment desires. The copyright holders, so far, have not been completely diligent in preserving the original negatives of films they control. In order to reconstruct old negatives, many archivists have had to go to Eastern bloc countries where American films have been better preserved.

 

In the future it will become even easier for old negatives to become lost and be "replaced" by new altered negatives. This would be a great loss to our society. Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten.

 

It's a bit out of context, but would you believe it is George Lucas making those statements in 1988?

http://www.toplessrobot.com/2011/09/1988_g..._george_luc.php

 

It's unfair to say this is what Lucas is doing. He's trying to turn his story into a unified whole (whether or not he's succeeding is another matter entirely) and he's changed things he finds thematically unfit (he made Greedo shoot first because he felt it made Han Solo into a more heroic character, which is a reason, as much as we like to disagree with that reason on the basis that it is retarded and cheapens his journey from scoundrel to hero).

 

Also, the old Star Wars negatives still exist. He's done nothing to them, and he still spearheads the movement to keep hollywood history intact. There's also nothing in his statement implying that he has a problem with those changes, just that he wishes to preserve the original versions.

[Gfted1]

Tommorrow, more advanced technology will be able to replace actors with "fresher faces,"...

 

Already happened (pic).

[Raithe]

Tommorrow, more advanced technology will be able to replace actors with "fresher faces,"...

 

Already happened (pic).

 

I would have expected you to use Jeff Bridges in the recent Tron film...

[Tale]

Also, the old Star Wars negatives still exist. He's done nothing to them

Not last I heard. The original negatives degraded. And the restoration process was solely done to create the Special Edition, so they didn't restore it unaltered.

 

This is why the last release of the originals, on DVD, were from the laserdisc masters. They're the only copy of the originals in any worthwhile condition.

 

The idea of a "unified whole" is merely an excuse for rewriting our cultural history. It does not deny the accusation.

[Blarghagh]

Okay, so I was wrong. Still, he hasn't degraded them on purpose or whatever. And 'rewriting cultural history' seems like an extremely harsh accusation for minor changes to a re-release of couple of films. How is an Ewok blinking in a DIFFERENT VERSION of the film a change cultural history anywhere? It's just more of this overdramatic nerd entitlement BS that seems to saturate geek culture these days.

 

Here's another perspective. Did you know most famous painters, in between showings of their work, would often do minor touch ups? There's a saying that has versions across all artistic works. In the case of painting, "a painting isn't finished until the artist puts the last stroke on the canvas". Why can't that be true for films? And for films, there's always the older versions to go back to!

 

I know I've got some old VHS tapes of the originals. They're still there. I still have my memories from watching it the first time. How is that changed? It hasn't, and if you claim otherwise you're just being a hipster among Star Wars nerds, and if that isn't the worst thing you could be then I don't know what is.

[Gorth]

Tommorrow, more advanced technology will be able to replace actors with "fresher faces,"...

 

Already happened (pic).

Oh yes...

 

 

[Raithe]

For the cheap laugh I actually watched the DOA - Dead or Alive film.

It was surprisingly good at the same time it was quite bad. I'm not quite sure how to put it.

The story was silly, the dialogue could be quite worse. The actors actually put decent effort into delivering their lines and doing their jobs.

The visuals were quite stunning for the most part. Some very nice background scenery, and some of the edited shots of the female fighters (especially during fight sequences) did kind of make me want to laugh while still appreciating the toned and flexible forms.

 

In fact, according to one of the female leads, over 40 bikinis were ruined in the shooting of this film..

 

The fact that they managed to throw in a Volleyball sequence that adds to the cheesey amusement.

 

Plus, Eric Roberts hamming it up as a villain is pretty much always worth it.

[Hurlshort]

I know the whole Greedo shooting first thing is a big controversy, but I hardly even noticed it when I watched the movie last night. It is literally less than a second of film. It doesn't bother me that it was changed because I don't let one small scene ruin the film, particularly when it still makes Han Solo look like a badass.

[Tale]

I'm mainly against that stupid musical number.

[Malcador]

Watched The Bank Job. Decent-ish heist film

[Calax]

Just watched the Gundam 00 movie....

 

Honestly, it wasn't worth it. It felt like the entire first half of the film was useless overall, everything that happened at that point could have happened in the span of 10 instead of 50 minutes.

 

Also the moral I got out of it was

beware of metallic space breast otherwise it'll eat you while trying to figure you out, and the only way for it to figure you out is to make a space flower

 

 

I WISH I was kidding.

[Nepenthe]

I know the whole Greedo shooting first thing is a big controversy, but I hardly even noticed it when I watched the movie last night. It is literally less than a second of film. It doesn't bother me that it was changed because I don't let one small scene ruin the film, particularly when it still makes Han Solo look like a badass.

Mmh, mostly agree, in fact I consider the '97 special editions to rather uniformly be an upgrade. Post episode 1-3 changes have generally been

 

My issue with said scene is that in the dvd version I have, it was a really ugly edit - it just looks weird. Haven't seen if they've updated that (and the Jabba scene), as haven't picked the BD up yet.

[Rosbjerg]

American works of art belong to the American public; they are part of our cultural history.

 

People who alter or destroy works of art and our cultural heritage for profit or as an exercise of power are barbarians

Today, engineers with their computers can add color to black-and-white movies, change the soundtrack, speed up the pace, and add or subtract material to the philosophical tastes of the copyright holder. Tommorrow, more advanced technology will be able to replace actors with "fresher faces," or alter dialogue and change the movement of the actor's lips to match. It will soon be possible to create a new "original" negative with whatever changes or alterations the copyright holder of the moment desires. The copyright holders, so far, have not been completely diligent in preserving the original negatives of films they control. In order to reconstruct old negatives, many archivists have had to go to Eastern bloc countries where American films have been better preserved.

 

In the future it will become even easier for old negatives to become lost and be "replaced" by new altered negatives. This would be a great loss to our society. Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten.

 

It's a bit out of context, but would you believe it is George Lucas making those statements in 1988?

http://www.toplessrobot.com/2011/09/1988_g..._george_luc.php

 

Actually the only thing he said, from what you quoted is "In the future it will become even easier for old negatives to become lost and be "replaced" by new altered negatives. This would be a great loss to our society. Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten." The rest was added by the author of the article, as he clearly states. "the bolds are mine.".

 

Funnt enough, without the bolds it seems like he rants about any alteration - remove the bolds and it's clear that he wants an artist to have the right to do what he wants with his work, but after him/her it should pass to the American public. So I'm sure Lucas from 1988 would agree with what 2011 Lucas is doing..

[Nepenthe]

Actually the only thing he said, from what you quoted is "In the future it will become even easier for old negatives to become lost and be "replaced" by new altered negatives. This would be a great loss to our society. Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten." The rest was added by the author of the article, as he clearly states. "the bolds are mine.".

notsureifserious.jpg

 

"the bolds are mine" means that the quoted text wasn't originally bolded, but the bolding was done by the author.

[Rosbjerg]

Ha, I was sure that meant he did it.. Those sections just seemed so out of place.. After reading again I still stand by my original criticism though, I still think that Lucas is warning about corporations and future copyright holders changing the art, not the artist themselves.

[Orogun01]

Ha, I was sure that meant he did it.. Those sections just seemed so out of place.. After reading again I still stand by my original criticism though, I still think that Lucas is warning about corporations and future copyright holders changing the art, not the artist themselves.

LucasFilm and LucasArts are both corporations last I checked.

[Tale]

Ha, I was sure that meant he did it.. Those sections just seemed so out of place.. After reading again I still stand by my original criticism though, I still think that Lucas is warning about corporations and future copyright holders changing the art, not the artist themselves.

I thought it seemed clear that he was warning about losing the original versions.

 

The copyright holders, so far, have not been completely diligent in preserving the original negatives of films they control. In order to reconstruct old negatives, many archivists have had to go to Eastern bloc countries where American films have been better preserved.

 

In the future it will become even easier for old negatives to become lost and be "replaced" by new altered negatives. This would be a great loss to our society. Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten.

 

Whosoever does it, it is the rewriting of our cultural history.

 

He says more than just this. This site has the full speach:http://www.savestarwars.com/resources.html

So you're right that he's against others than the creators altering the work. But he's still for maintaining the originals and the cultural history.

 

Analysis on other points in it can be found here: http://savestarwars.com/lucasspeechagainst...ialedition.html

Bits include

This is especially troublesome as his big push in this speech, not quoted due to its irrelevance, is that only directors and the primary writers can agree to alteration of a film, and if one of them is dead the film is locked as it was; which would freeze Return of the Jedi, since director Richard Marquand died in 1987, and need to have Kershner and Kasdan be the decision-makers for Empire.

[Nepenthe]

This is especially troublesome as his big push in this speech, not quoted due to its irrelevance, is that only directors and the primary writers can agree to alteration of a film, and if one of them is dead the film is locked as it was; which would freeze Return of the Jedi, since director Richard Marquand died in 1987, and need to have Kershner and Kasdan be the decision-makers for Empire.

Kershner passed away last November.

[LadyCrimson]

Television:

 

Breaking Bad's episode on Sun. was awesome. It's great to see more of Gus' world...and Jessie, where's his plot going? Going to be Gus' new right hand man when the other guy kicks the bucket? Used to be Gus wanted to get rid of Jessie & keep Walt, now it may be the other way around. I'd still like to see Walt's wife eat it tho...her sub-plots at this point are annoying, imo. (edit) Love the turn around of Walt's chr...from someone you can mostly sympathize with, to someone you love to hate.

Edited September 21, 2011 by LadyCrimson

[Kor Qel Droma]

Breaking Bad is my favorite show on television, but I'm having a hard time watching it this season. The first two episodes didn't really hook me, and I have had problems watching any since.

 

I'm not complaining, since its some of the best written work on the boob tube, but since Walt has been in remission the series just doesn't seem the same for me.

[LadyCrimson]

Yeah, it was a slowish start this season...focusing more on character perhaps, with all the the Hank and Walt's wife stuff. It took 3-4 episodes to get going and even then it remains a bit more of a slow burn season. But it's building up and the last couple look to be pretty important chr/plot wise, in terms of Jessie/Walt/Gus.

 

It's been interesting because Jessie is the opposite of Walt for me - not terribly likable at first but he's become a lot more interesting this season.

[Gorgon]

Saw Tropa de Elite 2 yesterday. It's a Brazilian movie about the deaths squads and gang land in Rio. You get the professor, quoting Focault versus the SWAT or BOPE commander, who eventually are forced to work together. Best Brazilian movie I've ever seen. Not that there have been that many.

Edited September 22, 2011 by Gorgon