Discuss the Ghostbusters movie that was released in 2016.
#4883725
savintheday wrote:but make the original theatrical releases available as well. Don't lock 'em away in a vault.
Totally agree, I just watched a comparison video of the altered and unaltered versions, and can see what there is to be upset about! In places they're almost different films!

I think I have the last unaltered VHS release.
MonaLS liked this
#4883795
savintheday wrote:I'm not even a Star Wars fan and that pisses me off! Making alternate versions with revisions or updates is all well and good, but make the original theatrical releases available as well. Don't lock 'em away in a vault.

As far as I know, the unaltered originals were last released on VHS like 15 years ago? Then they add a bunch of CGI bullshit, change scenes around and retitle them as "Parts IV thru VI" for the DVD releases? That's a crime against the history of cinema.

Lucas is either a certified genius or an authentic whacko.
The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi always carried the "Episode V' and "Episode VI" tags in their opening crawls--A New Hope was the only one that had an episode number added--and that was back in like 1979.

The "unaltered" versions were released on DVD around 2005 or so, each with the 2004 DVD version. So the complaint that the original cuts have never been available on a digital medium is just simply not true.
Sav C, JurorNo.2, MonaLS liked this
#4883825
savintheday wrote:Ah I see. So the prequels were on Lucas' mind even back that far? Interesting.
To some degree. If you pick up the Star Wars: A New Hope novelization, there's a prelude that basically gives you a pretty prescient plot outline of the Prequels--this was in the very first edition of the book printed in 1977. About the only major thing that changed from it was the depiction of the Emperor as kind of a figurehead ruled by his advisors--which clearly went out the window by 1983--but almost everything else is pretty close to what made it on the screen from 1999-2005.
JurorNo.2, savintheday liked this
#4883826
This post may contain an affiliate link that helps support GBFans.com when you make a purchase at no additional cost to you.

savintheday wrote:Ah I see. So the prequels were on Lucas' mind even back that far? Interesting.
Sure... about to the extent of a rough sketch on the back of a McDonald's napkin


If you've never read this book, please do:
https://www.amazon.com/Making-Star-Wars ... 0345494768
savintheday, JurorNo.2 liked this
#4883973
savintheday wrote:As far as I know, the unaltered originals were last released on VHS like 15 years ago?
There was a DVD release with 2 channel sound.

Look up "star wars de-specialized edition" someone took the blu-ray and yanked all the crap out.

Spielberg summed it up best- You can't take a release movie and make edits after the fact, you are screwing with people's memories which most folks are going to resent.
#4883979
gdonovan wrote:
savintheday wrote:As far as I know, the unaltered originals were last released on VHS like 15 years ago?
There was a DVD release with 2 channel sound.

Look up "star wars de-specialized edition" someone took the blu-ray and yanked all the crap out.

Spielberg summed it up best- You can't take a release movie and make edits after the fact, you are screwing with people's memories which most folks are going to resent.
They'll resent it so much, they'll start insisting all their memories have been screwed with, even when they clearly weren't. ;)
#4883981
JurorNo.2 wrote: They'll resent it so much, they'll start insisting all their memories have been screwed with, even when they clearly weren't. ;)
Spielberg would know- He made a modified version of ET where FBI agents holding guns were swapped out for ones holding walkie talkies. He wisely included the theatrical release on the same DVD if I recall the full interview.

Later he states "For myself, I tried [changing a film] once and lived to regret it. Not because of fan outrage, but because I was disappointed in myself. I got overly sensitive to [some of the reaction] to E.T., and I thought if technology evolved, …it was OK for a while, but I realized what I had done was I had robbed people who loved E.T. of their memories of E.T. […] If I put just one cut of E.T. on Blu-ray and it was the 1982, would anyone object to that? [The crowd yells “NO!” in unison.] OK, so be it."

I know about the memory thing- I have a mix tape (yes actual tape) that I made decades ago when I was "cruising." A year or two ago I remade the "cruising tape" in digital format since I was restoring the old car I once went cruising in. The only version I could find at the time of one of the songs was a remix by the same band and it was very jarring every time it came up in rotation. The changes are very slight but enough where I can pick it out in the first few notes.

Eventually I found the original release and all is well again. Memory is a funny thing.. I never got use to the subtle remix version. Each time it came up, my brain would remark it was the wrong darn version.
JurorNo.2, Kingpin, Sav C and 1 others liked this
#4883983
gdonovan wrote:Memory is a funny thing.. I never got use to the subtle remix version.
I hear you. I've gotten used to differences of that type before, but it can be very jarring and upsetting initially.

I'm just glad Ghostbuster '84 and '89 was never messed with that way. :)
Sav C liked this
#4884007
Im not a big star wars fan and i watched the extended version of new hope it was so long and boring. Ruined the movie..but If the had an extended version of gb84 or 89 id eat ut up. The terror dogs running doesnt hold up as well. If they taste fully cleaned it up i wouldn't be to upset but i get not wanting to paint over the mona lisa. However when the story is great special effects nor gender matter. Atc was on par with all of other feigs movies. It was just disappointing because they spent more on producing the movie. Like if you bought an really expensive glof club and still hit the golf ball same distance, you d be bummed out. Because of Hardcorefans of fans there would have been the same backlash and hate for any movie made. Its just that the media ate up misogynist angle and sony fed into it. Feig screwed up by making a movie that not enough people had a desire to go see, for multiple reasons. I know alot of people were excited about gb16, but not enough.
#4884025
savintheday wrote:I'm not even a Star Wars fan and that pisses me off! Making alternate versions with revisions or updates is all well and good, but make the original theatrical releases available as well. Don't lock 'em away in a vault.

As far as I know, the unaltered originals were last released on VHS like 15 years ago? Then they add a bunch of CGI bullshit, change scenes around and retitle them as "Parts IV thru VI" for the DVD releases? That's a crime against the history of cinema.
They made the unaltered versions available on DVD back in 2005 or 2006. Sure they're from the 1993 laserdisc but they're available. Not sure why everyone gets on Lucas' case. Disney, Kennedy and Abrahams are in my opinion far more deserving of being called the real life villains.
LandoSystem wrote:It's what I liked about it, too.
The first thing I said after I saw it was, "It was a fine Real Ghostbusters film."
No, just no. Don't even put it in the same category... :roll:
BatDan wrote:I think the latter, Juror and Alpha are like the dynamic duo for the 'ATC Defense Hotline", they wont rest until ATC is as universally loved as Howard the Duck.
I wish the same could be said for Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, simply a cinematic masterpiece. Oh come on it's not that bad. :mrgreen:
Alphagaia wrote:I thought I was the leader in this duo? Stop arguing and start agreeing! ;-)
Are you Batman and Juror is Robin? :lol:
#4884072
gdonovan wrote:Spielberg would know- He made a modified version of ET where FBI agents holding guns were swapped out for ones holding walkie talkies. He wisely included the theatrical release on the same DVD if I recall the full interview.

Later he states "For myself, I tried [changing a film] once and lived to regret it. Not because of fan outrage, but because I was disappointed in myself. I got overly sensitive to [some of the reaction] to E.T., and I thought if technology evolved, …it was OK for a while, but I realized what I had done was I had robbed people who loved E.T. of their memories of E.T. […] If I put just one cut of E.T. on Blu-ray and it was the 1982, would anyone object to that? [The crowd yells “NO!” in unison.] OK, so be it."

Good on Spielberg. He gets it. We have that DVD set and I haven't felt compelled to watch the revised version. I'm glad the Indiana Jones movies were left alone.

I'm also glad they didn't do this to Ghostbusters. Honestly, most of the effects still hold up to me (although I'm probably a bit used to them/biased). The Terror Dogs running and jumping does look a bit janky but the proton beams, Slimer, and especially Stay Puft still look impressive. Even if they added deleted scenes into the movie, it would kind of break up the flow I think. Less is more. I wouldn't have it any other way.
Sav C, pferreira1983 liked this
#4884075
savintheday wrote:I'm also glad they didn't do this to Ghostbusters. Honestly, most of the effects still hold up to me (although I'm probably a bit used to them/biased). The Terror Dogs running and jumping does look a bit janky but the proton beams, Slimer, and especially Stay Puft still look impressive. Even if they added deleted scenes into the movie, it would kind of break up the flow I think. Less is more. I wouldn't have it any other way.
I agree, for me everyone of the in-camera effects still hold up great. On the rooftop the terror dogs look fine to me, its just when they're at Louis's party that they look off. One or two of the Stay Puft composites don't look so great anymore (in one he's transparent, and in other part of a building moves while the rest of it stays still,) but the one where he's in Columbus Circle is still top notch, and so are the others. Everything about Slimer looks great to me, even the rotoscoping. The library ghost holds up really well too with the exception being the rotoscoping of the book is slightly transparent (although the cinematography hides that well.) The proton streams vary between each release, but they look really good on the 2014 Bluray.

Judging from all of the deleted scene from both films, they were right to leave all of them on the cutting room floor (especially for the first film,) but assuming they completed the shot, I think it would've been cool if Slimer flew out of the Statue of Liberty's crown at the end of GBII.

But yeah, I wouldn't change a thing.
savintheday liked this
#4884082
Yeah the library ghost's transformation is still amazing. Probably the best effect in the movie.

Come to think of it, there is one thing I would change. The dream ghost scene. When I was a kid, my mom taped the movie off of tv so I got the "clean" version, unbeknownst to me, with that scene completely omitted. Years later I buy the DVD and I'm like....oooook, I definitely don't remember Uncle Dan getting serviced by a ghost. Makes me wince every time.

Other than that! Yeah! Still love it!
Sav C liked this
#4884088
savintheday wrote:I'm not even a Star Wars fan and that pisses me off! Making alternate versions with revisions or updates is all well and good, but make the original theatrical releases available as well. Don't lock 'em away in a vault.

As far as I know, the unaltered originals were last released on VHS like 15 years ago? Then they add a bunch of CGI bullshit, change scenes around and retitle them as "Parts IV thru VI" for the DVD releases? That's a crime against the history of cinema.

Lucas is either a certified genius or an authentic whacko.
Wacko? That a technical term?

Image


Lucas doesn't know how to leave well enough alone. Every time there's a change (which is often) I cringe.
#4884137
savintheday wrote:Yeah the library ghost's transformation is still amazing. Probably the best effect in the movie.

Come to think of it, there is one thing I would change. The dream ghost scene. When I was a kid, my mom taped the movie off of tv so I got the "clean" version, unbeknownst to me, with that scene completely omitted. Years later I buy the DVD and I'm like....oooook, I definitely don't remember Uncle Dan getting serviced by a ghost. Makes me wince every time.

Other than that! Yeah! Still love it!
I don't like that scene either. It's just like the one piece that doesn't fit the rest of the movie. It's too goofy or something.
MonaLS liked this
#4884139
savintheday wrote:I'm not even a Star Wars fan and that pisses me off! Making alternate versions with revisions or updates is all well and good, but make the original theatrical releases available as well. Don't lock 'em away in a vault.

As far as I know, the unaltered originals were last released on VHS like 15 years ago? Then they add a bunch of CGI bullshit, change scenes around and retitle them as "Parts IV thru VI" for the DVD releases? That's a crime against the history of cinema.

Lucas is either a certified genius or an authentic whacko.
I hate the changes he keeps making in the movies. I want my original trilogy back. And Han shot first.
Kingpin liked this
#4884147
No, Han is the only one that shot!
Other than that I liked the things he added in the 1997 Special Edition!
But all of the later changes were unnecessary and just made to make the original trilogy fit in better with the crappy prequels, which I personally hate with all of my heart!
deadderek, MonaLS liked this
#4884626
Sav C wrote:
savintheday wrote: I think it would've been cool if Slimer flew out of the Statue of Liberty's crown at the end of GBII.
There are still those who claim to have seen that happen when they went to see the film originally.
Skyknight wrote:No, Han is the only one that shot!
Other than that I liked the things he added in the 1997 Special Edition!
But all of the later changes were unnecessary and just made to make the original trilogy fit in better with the crappy prequels, which I personally hate with all of my heart!
As mentioned before I'd take Revenge of the Sith over The Force Awakens any day.
Sav C liked this
#4884664
pferreira1983 wrote:As mentioned before I'd take Revenge of the Sith over The Force Awakens any day.
And that's just your opinion. I don't like it because it screwed up the continuity of the original trilogy! And The Force Awakens didn't do anything like that, because it takes place at a time that didn't even exist yet when the events of the OT took place!
I wish they'd remake the prequels in a way that fits in with the original unaltered OT! With uncle Owen as Obi Wan's brother and a Boba Fett that isn't just a clone and an Anakin that isn't an unbearable little brat! And without JarJar!
And NO MIDICHLORIANS!!!
Kingpin, Commander_Jim liked this
#4884665
Skyknight wrote:
pferreira1983 wrote:As mentioned before I'd take Revenge of the Sith over The Force Awakens any day.
And that's just your opinion. I don't like it because it screwed up the continuity of the original trilogy!
Which is something Feig wanted to avoid by creating his own universe, though the reboot tag still gave it a sour taste for people
as many feared it was intended to replace the classics.

I think it's a tough sell either way, especially with passionate fans who are invested in different things when watching a movie.
JurorNo.2, Sav C liked this
#4884791
Alphagaia wrote:
Skyknight wrote: And that's just your opinion. I don't like it because it screwed up the continuity of the original trilogy!
Which is something Feig wanted to avoid by creating his own universe, though the reboot tag still gave it a sour taste for people
as many feared it was intended to replace the classics.
And I still think it was. AFAIK they did want to build a Marvel like cinematic universe around it with franchises in other cities and crossovers and interlocked stories and all that. If that film had been more successful, it may as well have replaced the classics! I'm glad that didn't happen, but as someone else mentioned, it's a hollow victory because it means we won't get another movie anytime soon!

A prequel or reboot can change the universe the story takes place in. A sequel can also change things, but the change occurs after the events of the original took place and have no influence on them. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull didn't change anything about the previous Indy movies, but the tv show The Adventures of Young Indiana Jones would change how we see the character and his background!
Therefore prequels can be as bad as reboots if executed wrong, while bad sequels don't change the previous films. Matrix 1 was a great movie, but part 2 was so bad that I didn't even want to watch part 3. Does't change that the first one is good on its own!
#4884797
What a reboot does is just creating another universe in which to play in, just like the cartoons and comics did.
Just like RGB and EGB created different timelines to expand upon. They are their own contained worlds when compared to the movies or IDW comic, having similarities, but also obvious differences.
Even IDW, known for it's canon stories, claimed RGB happened in another universe when compared to the movies and did a mini serie on it (as well as the turtless, are those canon now as well?)
The Marvel cinematic universe you speak of could also connect this already established multiverse, and when the time is right, create another sequel for the classic movies as well.
#4884856
The cameos are a reference. We all know why they're there. There's a reason my audience applauded and it wasn't to see Heist or the cabbie, or a receptionist, or Patty's Uncle, or a random bust. ;)
Last edited by JurorNo.2 on October 31st, 2016, 1:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
deadderek liked this
#4884858
Those are actor cameos, not character cameos. I was thinking of going back and editing my statement so that someone wouldn't 'pounce' on trying to use that as excuse. But I expect I will need to be more explicit next time. You're well aware what the difference is ;)

There is a reason I didn't say Bill, Dan, Ernie or Harold.
Last edited by MagicPrime on October 31st, 2016, 2:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
#4884859
MagicPrime wrote:Those are actor cameos, not character cameos.
....The only reason we have those characters are the actors. The characters aren't real, we aren't talking about separate beings here, heh. My audience didn't need them to literally spoon feed "Hi, I'm Dr. Venkman" for it to be a meaningful reference. That's extremely nitpicky and you're only depriving yourself of enjoyment.
#4884860
JurorNo.2 wrote:
MagicPrime wrote:Those are actor cameos, not character cameos.
....The only reason we have those characters are the actors. My audience didn't need them to literally spoon feed "Hi, I'm Dr. Venkman" for it to be a meaningful reference. That's extremely nitpicky and you're only depriving yourself of enjoyment.
It came across very hollow. I would have rather just not had them cameo at all. I get exponentially more enjoyment for Ray showing up in Casper than I do Dan showing up as random cabbie.

It appears that some time today someone who […]

Correct, it grants several in fact the Melody's […]

Are they just newspaper clippings or something? […]

If you check the post below from reddit, one of […]