Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc    |    Miscellaneous topics pertaining to Star    |    25,718 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 24,730 of 25,718    |
|    Sandman to sgordon@changethisparttohardbat.com    |
|    Re: James Cameron    |
|    23 Nov 10 07:55:29    |
      From: mr@sandman.net              In article <4ceaff77$0$1641$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,        sgordon@changethisparttohardbat.com wrote:              > : Look at it the other way around - when the film is owned not by the       > : artist but by the movie company and they have butchered the artists       > : vision of the movie and the final product looks nothing like the       > : artwork he had in mind from the start. I'm sure you're familiar with       > : movies like Brazil and Blade Runner just to mention two obvious ones.       >       > That seems like a different issue to me. Perhaps you can clarify?       >       > Something else I was thinking of, was the loss of some 80% of feature       > movies during the silent era. I know why it happened (not through any       > deliberate nefarious reason), and just think that it is unfortunate,       > because they were important artistic achievements that we cannot see.              Sure (to a certain extent, that period of film making wasn't really       known for it Oscar-winning-esque works of arts, really :)              But 80 years from now, the SE will suffice as an heritage of this       particular artistic achivement.              > Whatever the reason, whatever the legality, I think it is unfortunate       > when a revolutionary work of art cannot be seen.              Sure, but this isn't the case in this discussion. THe original Star       Wars most certainly can be seen, and will be able to be seen 100 years       from now - at least as much as the silent movies that have been kept.              > SW won oscars for       > special effects and editing (among other things), and so I think it is       > unfortunate that we can't see the effects and the editing that won the       > oscars in 1977.              But we can. It's not like the SE was an effect transplant. I'd say       some 95% of the original effects are on-screen in the SE. Most notably       is that the trench run has been revamped.              Plus, if you want to see the original effects, then see it. GL can't       stop me.              > Watching the SE, there is no way to tell which effects       > were the ones that revolutionized filmmaking, and which effects are new.              I think it's easy. :)                            --       Sandman[.net]              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca