|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Oct 4, 2018 13:56:40 GMT
No. That's false.
There are amply online versions like the famous en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmy%27s_Despecialized_Edition
Also you can get the the DVD with a version of the theatrical edition, or buy old VHS tapes.
Where there is a will there's a way. My way is to prefer the special editions for IV and V, but being mixed on VI.
No, it's true. I have not seen the original theatrical version of Star Wars.
I believe you. What's not true is that you cannot have or see the original. Do or do not, there is no try. |
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Oct 4, 2018 14:03:49 GMT
I guess I'm the only one who thought the shark wasn't that terrible looking.
|
|
|
|
Post by Popeye Doyle on Oct 4, 2018 14:07:26 GMT
I guess I'm the only one who thought the shark wasn't that terrible looking. I've never had an issue with it. I like the detail of chunks of Quint in the shark's teeth when attacking Brody later. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2018 14:10:25 GMT
No, it's true. I have not seen the original theatrical version of Star Wars.
I believe you. What's not true is that you cannot have or see the original. Do or do not, there is no try. I do not. That's a waste of good money. |
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on Oct 4, 2018 15:08:04 GMT
I guess I'm the only one who thought the shark wasn't that terrible looking. You are not. I watched the movie again recently for the first time in decades and I thought the shark was OK. I mean, you can tell that it is fake, obviously, but I didn't think it detracted from the movie.
Having said that, Richard Dreyfuss might have a point about younger audiences who are accustomed to present-day CGI quality being turned off by "Jaws" solely because of the way the shark looks.
|
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Oct 4, 2018 15:18:28 GMT
I guess I'm the only one who thought the shark wasn't that terrible looking. You are not. I watched the movie again recently for the first time in decades and I thought the shark was OK. I mean, you can tell that it is fake, obviously, but I didn't think it detracted from the movie.
Having said that, Richard Dreyfuss might have a point about younger audiences who are accustomed to present-day CGI quality being turned off by "Jaws" solely because of the way the shark looks.
The same ones who are "turned off" because a movie is in Black and White and even tho' they have refused to watch even one . they hate them instinctively. Their loss, say I.
BRUCE was fine ! |
|
|
|
Post by Captain Spencer on Oct 4, 2018 16:05:35 GMT
I thought Dreyfuss was off the cocaine. Ha! I was just going to say he needs to lay off the coke. |
|
|
|
Post by mrellaguru on Oct 4, 2018 16:52:07 GMT
I'm with that as long as it doesn't replace the original. Blade Runner went through many improved editions over the years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Spike Del Rey on Oct 4, 2018 18:41:37 GMT
You are not. I watched the movie again recently for the first time in decades and I thought the shark was OK. I mean, you can tell that it is fake, obviously, but I didn't think it detracted from the movie.
Having said that, Richard Dreyfuss might have a point about younger audiences who are accustomed to present-day CGI quality being turned off by "Jaws" solely because of the way the shark looks.
The same ones who are "turned off" because a movie is in Black and White and even tho' they have refused to watch even one . they hate them instinctively. Their loss, say I.
BRUCE was fine ! I've seen it twice in cinemas over the last few years, and there were plenty of younger people in the audience who were really impacted by the movie. I'm talking as young as high school, so that argument is weak. Kids today will appreciate a well-told story no matter what era it's from, if they don't then they're morons anyway and no amount of modern effects will change that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2018 22:27:21 GMT
I'm on the fence. Not the worst idea ever suggested, but what would be the point beyond trying to appeal to the younger fans? Is that reason enough for the expense and the potential backlash?
And yeah, the shark looks fake, but passable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lebowskidoo 🦞 on Oct 4, 2018 23:50:14 GMT
Can’t think of a single CG shark in a movie that looked much better than the shark in Jaws. THIS to infinity and beyond!  |
|
|
|
Post by James on Oct 5, 2018 0:12:45 GMT
Pretty strange considering he’s one of the cast members of the film. Why want something that obviously shouldn’t be needed?
|
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Oct 5, 2018 0:18:30 GMT
I didnt see the shark as fake until Deep Blue Sea.
After that, for some reason, a couple of the overhead shark shots without any body movements just cried "fake!"
But the underwater shark, while real, is too small to match the mechanical one which is much bigger.
But, why not demonstrate it with THE LAST SHARK?
If there is a film that needs some FX help, it is that one.
They use some real up close great white shark footage though--but the underwater stuff looks like a hotdog wiener being pulled on a string.
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Oct 5, 2018 0:26:13 GMT
To go back to E.T., Spielberg directed the film and was the one responsible for the changes made to it which he later regretted. He first implemented the changes because certain animatronic shots bothered him since they weren't perfected back when they were first implemented for the film.
As a compromise, he has the original film released on DVD when the 2002 version with the CGI changes were released. When the Blu-ray came around for the film, he said:
"There's going to be no more digital enhancements or digital additions to anything based on any film I direct.... When people ask me which E.T. they should look at, I always tell them to look at the original 1982 E.T. If you notice, when we did put out E.T. we put out two E.T.s. We put out the digitally enhanced version with the additional scenes and for no extra money, in the same package, we put out the original '82 version. I always tell people to go back to the '82 version."
He has also said:
"At this point right now I think letting movies exist in the era, with all the flaws and all of the flourishes, is a wonderful way to mark time and mark history."
"I think the other good thing is that they understand when they see a movie and they suddenly see something that obviously could have been done much better today and could have been corrected in the DVD/Blu-Ray transfer, they really appreciate seeing the strings attached."
|
|
