Duke Togo

WTF is TWOK?

Not sure what this has to do with killing the bad guy. He's going to kill everyone else, so it's self defense.

Can't I strike him down without giving in to anger? Seems like a pretty justifiable move, to me.

1,000 replies in this thread! No, I have nothing to add, here.

The writer says he's not a replicant, Harrison Ford says he's not a replicant, and the book the movie is based on says he's not a replicant. Even with the silly unicorn scene, there's nothing in the movie that actually proves that he is a replicant. And don't anyone bother to bring up the "eyes" bit; its already known that the scene where Deckard's eyes get that replicant look is because Ford accidentally stepped into Sean Young's light.

Abyss director's cut I never much liked mainly because of the ending. It just seemed so heavy-handed to me. Dad Boot is a bit different, because in it's original form it wasn't a film, it was a miniseries. The director's cut extends the run time by an hour, but it's still only just over half of it's original 6-hour length. I've seen both the theatrical and director's cuts, but the viewing was so many years apart I can't even tell you which was superior or what was different.

That's really the whole thing, Mike. I don't care what he does, if he also provides us with the originals. I also don't feel that he "raped" my childhood; I think such analogies and childish and borderline offensive.

Lightsabers make everything better, don't you know this? As far as context goes, here ya go: George Lucas' 1988 Congressional Testimony Sure he did, when he made them available for purchase.

When I saw Aliens at a theater in Dallas 1986, it had the famous "sentry gun" scene in it. For years none of my friends knew what I was talking about, nor could I find any proof that the scene existed. It wasn't until the special editions of the Alien movies came out in the late 90's that I finally saw that scene again. However, the added scene with Newt's parents seems unnecessary to me, though it's not enough to put me off of watching it. BTW, as far as Highlander II goes, it's the only movie I've ever walked out of in the theater. I don't care how they cut it, I don't think you can salvage anything out of that mess.

The idea for this topic kinda sprung out of an ongoing debate in the Star Wars blu-ray thread, and I thought there might be enough folks around here interested in film to make a real discussion out of it (not centered around Star Wars). Theatrical cuts of films may or may not have been altered by studio exec's who have no business touching film. Director's cuts may return film to its original intended "vision," but was that vision too unwieldy or unfocused to begin with? Are extended and special editions anything more than a marketing ploy? And WTF is an "unrated" cut, anyway? Personally, I feel the whole theatrical vs director's cut argument largely depends on the film and the director. There is no question in my mind that the director's cut of Kingdom of Heaven is vastly superior for the theatrical, for instance. Extended and special editions are a novelty for me, and I'll check them out if the original film was something I enjoyed. Apocalypse Now and Gladiator are both films I love, but I've found their extended versions to be interesting at best, and too much at their worst. As far as "unrated" versions, I've never seen one, but I always assumed these editions meant nothing more that more boobs and cursing. Anyway, I'd like to hear the opinions of anyone who is interested in the discussion. It's not about being right or wrong, and maybe we'll all find something new to watch in the process.You wanna talk about the SW Special Editions? Go for it. The "restored" version of Metropolis? Keen. Blade Runner Final Cut? I've got your unicorn right here.

When you get down to it, to each their own. I'll enjoy the films the way I want, and you can enjoy them the way you want. This really is getting away from the discussion on the quality of the video transfers of the Saga.

I've seen plenty of kids who absolutely love Star Wars in the past decade, but we're a while away from knowing whether or not it will stick with them. To some degree I feel part of being a fan was being around when all of this was fresh and new, and being caught up with the Star Wars craze that swept the planet. It's like being marinated in it, and that "taste" will always be there.

Kasdan did a majority of the work on the RotJ script, but it is my understanding that the total product is the work of 4 people. You mean the Director's Guild? And that is a gross oversimplification of why he went against the DGA. I don't have to say it, Lucas said it himself 23 years ago:

Studio's don't hire directors? He's no better than a Studio suit altering someone else's work. And "he wrote the story for both and hired a script writer to polish it" could not be more wrong. Lucas wrote a "treatment," which was handed off to a screenwriter(s), who actually wrote it. JRR Tolkien had more to do with the LotR movie trilogy script than Lucas did with TESB and RotJ, and he had been dead for 25 years.

Technically speaking, he neither wrote or directed TESB or RotJ. What he's done with them is no different than a studio stepping in and re-cutting or otherwise altering a film to their liking, over the objections of the director.

He did, until Lucas came in and "improved" Duke's scenes by adding dialog..

Considering this entire thread is based around hate, I find your comment someone hypocritical (and ironic, considering I don't really get involved in this discussion). You also wildly exaggerate.

My bad, dawg, my bad. And yes, I am well aware the BD's will have better picture quality than Harmy's release of the OT. I'm not blind, nor am I stupid. But considering I get to watch the films as they were intended to be seen, I'm pretty happy with the picture quality. They're far superior to the letterboxed GOUT DVDs.

Not sure why it is that way, I just popped up the scene and mine is not cropped like that one is. Looks like the image I snagged off the forums has a slight crop on the bottom. Odd. Bad movies are bad movies, Keith. I wouldn't even bother if they didn't have Star Wars in the title.

It's not a fan cut; its considered to be a restoration/preservation. A fan cut would be something like the famous "Phantom Editor" cuts of Episodes I & II. BTW, I prefer (and promote) those fan cuts of I & II because I find the movies to be unwatchable otherwise. You can call me a hypocrite if you like, but I see a difference between ruining a classic and dressing up a turd.

BD on top, Harmy's edition on the bottom (DVD-9 upscaled). No, these pictures are not mine, they are as found on the origintaltrilogy.com forum; yes, obviously, there is image compression involved. I'm more than content with my copies. I don't currently have the sound system to fully appreciate the audio in the BD set (which I do understand to be excellent), so I am not losing out.

This is totally incorrect. TPM was shot on film, while RotS was filmed on HD cameras and is capped at 1k resolution--it will never have a higher resolution than 1080p. A clean print of TPM will look superior to RoTS on a theater screen. I've read probably 4 reviews of the Saga which I would call "reliable," and they all generally say the same thing. What you consider acceptable for image quality is not what I consider it to be; anything less than a stellar transfer for these films is a disgrace. Also, in my opinion, anything that is done to the image that does not involve cleaning it up, correcting damage, or correcting color, is unnecessary and unwanted. However, I don't have a problem when technology is used to "clean up" special effects or errors in consistency or continuity (lips synced to audio, reversed shots, etc). Removing a visible wire on a suspended object or fixing an ADR issue with what is seen on the screen can be done seamlessly without affecting the integrity of the film.

Fixed!

You must be reading different reviews than I. Put in Blade Runner. Put in The Godfather. Put in 2001. Those are transfers worthy of the names of the films that they are of. The fact that one of the seminal films in motion picture history doesn't have a top grade video transfer is disgraceful. I am very picky when it comes to my Blu purchases, and I'll pass over films I love if I don't feel the transfer is up to snuff (I'm looking at you, Gladiator).