Grex Cinema Conference

Item 68: Grex goes to the movies - The Summer Movies Review Item

Entered by jlamb on Tue Jun 22 02:57:42 2004:

24 new of 323 responses total.


#300 of 323 by twenex on Mon Sep 13 17:42:05 2004:

This discussion has been moved to Item #1041.

Religion plays to emotions. It's arguable that without emotions, much of our
society (it's ills and its boons) would not exist. I have never understood
the presence of religion and mysticism in Vulcan philosophy, as it's
supposedly based entirely on logic (not that it matters, Vulcans being
fictional), but I believe that true harmony can only exist with a balance
between the emotional and the rational.


#301 of 323 by rcurl on Mon Sep 13 17:49:33 2004:

The Special Theory of Relativity follows from Maxwell's equations for
electromagnetic fields if you insist that they apply in the same form in
different inertial coordinates. The intermediate concept was the Lorenz
Contractions. The experimental support for this came from the
Michelson-Morley experiments. I would say that General Relativity is a
Law, if you want to be fussy. However scientists are not hung up with what
they call a theory and what they call a law. After all, the existence of
atoms is called the Atomic Theory. These are just word games of no
significance. Scientists know what the supporting evidence is for their
"generalizations", whether called laws or theories.

The central scientific quandry currently is reconciling General Relativity
and Quantum Theory (which should be called a "law", as it is vastly more
precisely confirmed (to something like 11 significant figures) than
General Relativity or anything else that is called a "law"). 

In regard to people having memories from past lives...I go along with
Thomas Paine who wrote "Is it more probable that nature should go out of
her course, or that a man should tell a lie?" (from Paine's "Age of
Reason", Part I).



#302 of 323 by twenex on Mon Sep 13 17:56:57 2004:

Past lives neither require that nature "go out of her course", nor that people
who have them are telling lies, if one defines lie as "a statement made with
deliberate intent to deceive". It could be (a) that they are mistaken, or that
(b) the connection to past lives is a normal part of nature. One would expect
nature, by our reasoning, to always "work", but the fact that I am disabled
doesn't prove that I don't exist.


#303 of 323 by albaugh on Mon Sep 13 19:06:15 2004:

Finally saw Harry Potter 3 at the Village Theater in Ann Arbor.  Well worth
the $3 and the drive from Plymouth.  Now will read the book...


#304 of 323 by richard on Tue Sep 14 02:40:52 2004:

Getting back to movies, I saw Vincent Gallo's "THE BROWN BUNNY" over the
weekend.  Vincent Gallo is a very talented young director who lives here
in Brooklyn.  He directed the wonderful if quirky "BUFFALO 66" among
others.  In this movie, he stars as a professional motorcycle racer
driving across country from New York to California for a race.  He is a
lonely introvert haunted by guilt over an old relationship, a guilt which
makes it impossible for him to commit to relatonships in the present.  So
he races motorcycles, a metaphor for racing from his past.  The movie is a
cross country roadtrip where he is heading home to california and back
into his past, and meeting women along the way, whom he wants to be with
but can't because of his overwhelming guilt over this past relationship.
It leads to where we meet his old girlfriend, Chloe Sevigny, and discover
the reasons and source of his guilt.  The key scene in the movie is a
graphic oral sex scene involving Sevigny and Gallo, and while it sounds
er..excessive if you read press reports...the scene is artfully done and
key to understanding Gallo's character and the demons he hides within.
This is a dark movie about how some people are trapped in the past and
can't ever escape it, they can never live in the moment, in the present,
because the past is always there.  



"BROWN BUNNY" is a really good movie, not as good as Gallo's earlier effort,
"BUFFALO '66", but Gallo remains one of the best, most cutting edge directors
out there working today IMO.  Worth seeing.


#305 of 323 by tod on Tue Sep 14 15:12:28 2004:

re #304
Is that the one with John Doe, Iggy, Tim O'Leary, etc?



#306 of 323 by gelinas on Wed Sep 15 02:23:59 2004:

On Morning Edition today, one of the stories was on film restoration.  'Twas
noted that Star Wars was so popular that so many copies were made from the
negative that the original is now unusable.  There is so much dirt and so
many scratches on _every_ frame that restoration is impossible.


#307 of 323 by twenex on Wed Sep 15 09:15:49 2004:

Oy.


#308 of 323 by gregb on Wed Sep 15 14:11:15 2004:

That's bull.  From what I've seen on Bravo and other channels, the
original is used only to create a master copy which is used to make
distributed copies.  Also, if restoration was impossible, that means the
DVD set coming out would be pretty crappy, and you know that's not gonna
happen.


#309 of 323 by gull on Wed Sep 15 17:33:54 2004:

The DVD set is based on the 1997 release, not on the original one.

I still think Lucas has a good copy stashed away somewhere that he'll
trot out when it's financially convenient.


#310 of 323 by gregb on Thu Sep 16 16:19:15 2004:

I doubt it.  He was never really happy with the original outcome, which 
is why he kept fiddling with it.  To go back and re-release the 
original would be like selling a draft version, in his eyes.


#311 of 323 by mcnally on Thu Sep 16 17:04:49 2004:

 re #310:  Consensus opinion seems to be that when George Lucas's
 artistic integrity has to duke it out with conflicting financial
 incentives the artistic integrity rarely wins the fight.  I believe
 if there's enough money involved he'll overcome his perfectionist
 streak.


#312 of 323 by richard on Fri Sep 17 03:45:14 2004:

#311...McNally, that is ridiculous.  George Lucas is a billionaire or close
to it.  Why would he pick financial incentives over artistic integrity when
he doesn't need the money?  He'll never be able to spend the money he has now
in his lifetime.  His motivations are artistic, these films are his legacy
and he wants both trilogies to fit together so that future generations will
see the films as a WHOLE six film arc.  So he tampers with the older films
to make them fit better.  It makes artistic sense. 


#313 of 323 by tpryan on Fri Sep 17 16:58:32 2004:

        George Lucas's ten year delay in making the first trilogy
was totally financial.  The wife he divorced would have California
'community property' of the intellectual property.

        Jedi mind trick.  Palpatine could do it.  After all, Anakin's
mom was the hottest *woman* (with a speaking part) in Episode I.


#314 of 323 by tod on Fri Sep 17 17:48:46 2004:

Sporting wood at Star Wars is just *wrong*, Tim! ;)


#315 of 323 by richard on Sat Sep 18 01:28:59 2004:

re #312...Lucas busy during the delay between the two trilogies.  He was
producing the Indiana Jones trilogy.  Spielberg directed those movies, but
Lucas was the producer in charge of everything and co-scriptwriter.  Those
movies also made a ton of money.  Funny he didn't stop working altogether
during his divorce isnt it?  


#316 of 323 by tpryan on Sat Sep 18 21:23:53 2004:

        Anakin's mom was the only woman (with a speaking part) in Episode I.
(There was a child-queen that had a bigger part).


#317 of 323 by richard on Tue Sep 21 03:35:44 2004:

Interesting, I just read a CNN article about the changes Lucas made 
for the DVD editions of the first trilogy.  It appears that in the 
Empire Strikes Back, the Emperor is in fact (trivia question!) played 
by a woman wearing an Emperor mask, with the voice being done by actor 
Clive Revill.  In Return of the Jedi of course, as well as in the 
first trilogy, the Emperor is played by actor Ian McDiarmid.  So now, 
by the miracle of modern technology, McDiarmid now has the part in 
Empire Strikes Back.  

Lucas has also been tinkering with Jabba the Hut, and we get a new, 
improved, and better Jabba.  


#318 of 323 by gull on Tue Sep 21 13:27:14 2004:

Sigh.  I liked the original three movies in their original form.  I
didn't think the gee-whiz special effects were an improvement.


#319 of 323 by anderyn on Tue Sep 21 14:04:24 2004:

Personally, I would have preferred to get the movies as I saw them originally.
Why mess with success?


#320 of 323 by tpryan on Tue Sep 21 16:39:35 2004:

        The song that Sny Snootles does in Jabba's Hut is also different,
as is the Ewok Celebration.


#321 of 323 by albaugh on Tue Sep 21 18:22:43 2004:

You might not have noticed, but the "victory song" from #3 (ROTJ), with the
Ewoks and all, which I did think was "funky", was replaced by a different song
when episodes 4-6 were re-released prior to episode 1.


#322 of 323 by gull on Tue Sep 21 20:02:18 2004:

This response has been erased.



#323 of 323 by gull on Tue Sep 21 20:03:53 2004:

Re resp:320: That was the worst change of all.  It doesn't move the plot
along and the aliens are about as convincing as Muppets.


There are no more items selected.

You have several choices: