Heh... FilmThreat.com gets it WRONG again!

[GeorgeC]

Seriously,

Some writers need to do better research before they post articles.

Yes, they're on a time crunch to write and so on but people look like goobers when they make basic mistakes!

For instance in his latest article about Public Domain films on FilmThreat.com , http://www.filmthreat.com/index.php?sec ... es&Id=2233 , Phil Hall proclaims there has been no "commercial release" of a DVD version of Orson Welles' "The Stranger."

That's FLAT OUT WRONG.

Europe had a release through MGM (or Universal?) years ago on DVD, and it's just been within the past two years that Universal finally brought the movie out in a decent release within the US. It's part of their Legacy label that they used for Deer Hunter, Frankenstein, Dracula, and The Mummy (original version, no Brenda Frasier).

Granted, the Universal release of "The Stranger" seems to be hard to find in stores and you generally have to special-order it or do the Amazon-dance for it, BUT ===>

This is not the first time Phil's been wrong, either. He apparently missed the memo about ALL the Private SNAFU cartoons being out on a Bosko DVD collection.

(Didn't agree with his opinion about the shorts, either. A fair percentage of the SNAFU shorts are excellent and as funny as any of the official mainstream Looney Tunes.)

Gee, without using Wikipedia (which is notoriously unreliable at any rate), anybody can find out through just Amazon.com whether a film (public domain or not) has actually been put out on DVD!

[eddievalient]

Nah, George is alright. I may not always agree with him but his "rants" are always interesting. Let's not fight, okay?

[GeorgeC]

Heh, another pointless thread. Really you have to find something ALL the time to rant about?!! the more I see your posts Im reminded Of someone on another forum who got banned. I doubt its you though. ot: who cares if this person made a mistake? Hes human like all of us... than again look how you reacted to the treatment Ollie got here when he died. You didn't even say sorry. You sir have issues. Just rude.

Maybe you're the one that has issues?

I get sick of all the "rants" about princesses and the polls about Disney characters and sequels personally. I no longer comment on it and expect that as human nature and people under-25 are going to keep talking incessantly about that like it or not. The website managers can and have dealt with that in the past but there are times I wished they'd clamp down on it sooner than they did.

I could care less about the top 30 films list since anything by AFI is subjective as hell. It's a panels' opinion list and should not be taken as fact. However, people no longer know the difference between fact and opinion and it's "wrong" by the thinking of some film enthusiasts and self-appointed gold ribbon panels if you don't think "Citizen Kane" or "Casablanca" are great films. That type of mentality also applies to Cartoon Brew and at least one of its webmasters, too.

As for the Ollie Johnston story, get a clue yourself. The guy was well over 90 years old. It's news than an old man dies??? Yes, it's the end of an animated era and we should feel sad but I think it's indicative of how badly screwed up the news cycle and its prioritiess are now. Are we so bored with REAL issues, REAL life that we blow up the deaths of people that we see on TV or in film and give them more time than the people we know in real life? I don't know jack about Ollie Johnston other than what I've read or heard but it certainly didn't hit me as hard as the death of family friends THAT I KNOW PERSONALLY. I don't get that impression something like at least 75% of you guys and THAT is sad.

There are people in the animation community that post about the Nine Old Men and Walt Disney like they were their best buddies and it's all B.S. Yes, they knew them IN PASSING, but that's it! If anything, the entire entertainment (including the news media which has BECOME an arm of the entertainment industry in the past 20 years) is so self-absorbed that this is just par-the-course. This was never clearer this past year when I saw how stretched out the obits for Ollie Johnston, Tim Russert, and George Carlin became.

Those guys were worth more as human beings than anybody else that their deaths had to dominate the news for the better part of a week???

[James]

Here's my POV - ignore the threads you have no interest in. As George rightly mentions he just doesn't visit the princess threads. If you don't like George's "rants" don't click on his threads! We try to be very open to what people like in this forum and not just limit discussion to what interests the moderators.

[GeorgeC]

By your command,

Imperious Leader!













That's a classic Galactica phrase, by the way... No harm meant by it.

[eddievalient]

And speaking of Galactica (to have my own rant), I have refused to watch the newer series on principal for the simple reason that they made Starbuck a female character. Now that's not a knock against women, understand, but changing a male character into a female one, especially a character like Starbuck, changes the entire show and it's no longer the same thing. They should never have been allowed to use the Galactica name for their series. Now, every time I talk about being a fan, I have to clarify that I like the original series and more often than not, I'm met with blank stares because no one seems to remember the original, despite the endless reruns on the Scifi Channel (which is where I first saw it). Now if only the price of the dvd set would come down to something approaching reasonable...

[GeorgeC]

The new Galactica is a symptom of our times.

Take an old idea, strip it of everything that made it special, give it a new coat of paint, and then pretend it's like what came before.

Marvel and DC have also done this with a bunch of characters by writing them off ignominously, killing the originals, and replacing them with your choice of new gender/ethnicity/sexual orientation/etc. And 99% of the time the fans HATE IT when companies do that. Editors/writers/producers of this shlock have an ability to turn off their hearing and not listen to fans when they make legitimate arguments about how stupid killing classic characters all the time is. And unfortunately, a lot of the editors that mastermind or okay these storylines DO get their contracts renewed.

NuGalactica got away with this because it came on the air 25 years AFTER the original show originally aired. There was nothing but reruns in the meantime and Galactica wasn't available to many people for quite a while. The original Galactica was one of three shows aired on Sci Fi Channel but it had very spotty cable distribution in those days. The sad thing about NuGalactica is that it probably gets a fraction of the ratings the original Galactica did but is allowed to go until its mercy killing next year. There weren't enough Classic Galactica fans to protest the newer incarnation but there more than enough (in my opinion) clueless noobies to cheer on NuGalactica.

It wasn't only changing the gender of several characters that threw me off NuGalactica. I just don't care for the depressed, despairing tone of the show at all. Where's the hope? It's relentlessly dark.

Oh, and stylistically shakey-cam has to be one of the worst ideas anybody adopted for filming. Steady-cam was developed in the first place so people wouldn't get nauseous looking at film rolling all over the place! Not a good choice in my opinion. It was hard enough to look at those godawful starship designs but did the show have to be deliberately filmed to make me want to vomit?

[Randall]

On the other hand, some of us LOVE the new Battlestar Galactica.

I like the old one, too, and watched it when it was first on, as well as the DVDs; but c'mon, there was some serious cheese in there. And I couldn't care less if someone's gender was changed for the new version. The new show is totally new, except for a basic concept. I understand the argument that they could have named it something else, but then they'd be accused of ripping off BG, right?

And what would be the purpose of doing the exact same show again, I wonder?

There is room in the world for more than one vision. I guess some of us are lucky enough to be able enjoy more than one kind of show (or comic). I feel sorry for those that can't get over the past.

[GeorgeC]

Sorry for those of us who CAN'T get over the past?

The problem with entertainment today Randall is that they run roughshodover the past, period!

Companies can't think of anything new so they basically ^(#@&$@ over the older stuff and then brand a new "concept" with the old name.

Most people that like the Classic Galactica wouldn't have minded the new show if they HADN'T called it Galactica in the first place!

My other problem with a lot of "reinventions" -- they tend to be very nihilistic.

I'll say one thing for immoral people even if I disagree with greed, pettiness, and hate for its own sake -- at least they have a set of values!

Nihilists don't believe in anything or hold to any kind of standard. Is it any wonder they rarely produce anything of lasting value?

[James]

EDIT - this is in responce to Randall. George and I were posting at the same time!

I can see that to a point. But I hate when companies use a older beloved franchise to launch something new just to get the built-in audience and not build their own.

I didn't watch the older and I don't watch the new BG. So this may not be the best example. But if the newer version is significantly different except for names and places, could they have not just made a cool new sci-fi series under a different name? Yes, but then they would have had to build their audience from the ground up. By using the BG mantle they can do less work and spend less money to get an audience.

A better example is Speed 2. That movie was completely separate with nothing in common with the first movie other than a single actor. But by slapping that name on there and throwing in a few forced jokes about the first movie - BAM! - you've got a sequel rather than something new that people might not go see since they don't know it yet. The movie would have been exactly the same named Cruise Control and with the Speed references cut - but it would have cost more money to market it.

Anyway, my point is yes you can take something old and remake it with a new vision. But don't treat us like idiots. We can tell if your vision is limited to how much money you can make!

[Randall]

Except that in this case, the new BG has been hailed by many critics as the best show (or one of the best) on television. Whether or not one agrees with that, the old show certainly never had that description given to it.

I do sympathize with the notion that the new BG could have been named differently; but as I said, the comparisons would have still been obvious, and people would have had that to complain about.

However, I still do agree with George and James on one thing--- too many good shows and movies are subjected to lousy remakes. But, in the case of BG, they took old cheese and made a better dish out of it. The darkness may not be to one's liking, and I get that; but the new show is very dramatic and involving--- without the campiness and lousy effects of the old show. And I like the shaky cam.

And for those that hate the new show, how many actually watched more than the pilot or a couple of more episodes before deciding it was too different from their beloved old favorite to ever be liked?

[eddievalient]

I've never watched it (like I said, I refuse on principal) but I did get the novelization of the miniseries out of a bargain bin. If I ever get around to reading it, I'll form a more solid opinion then. Fair?

[Randall]

Well, at least then you'd have something aside from prejudice to base an opinion on. But it would still just be an opinion of a book, not the show itself, right?

[eddievalient]

Now you're just teasing me.

[Ben]

I should point out that Speed 2 was written with Keanu very much in mind. The original version had his and Sandra Bullock's characters about to enjoy their honeymoon, when Dennis Hopper's "brother" Willem Defoe got on board to get his own back.

I think Defoe still does actually play the brother role. Keanu was even in discussions to play in the film too, but dropped out for whatever reasons (I think I remember him saying he didn't want to play in a retread). It's not the most original of stories (doing "Die Hard on a boat" was even mooted for a fourth Die Hard movie back around the same time, but Under Siege had gotten there first) so I think Keanu left because the script was lame. It made sense for Bullock to jump to leading actress with that opportunity, but they had to find a Reeves substitute, which effectually killed the movie's chances.

Anyway, thought I would point that out. And that the surround sound on that film is still awesome!