Slashdot Mirror

When George Lucas announced the "improved" versions of the classic Star Wars movies, he famously claimed that it would be impossible to recreate the original release versions. He said something like he had accidentally "taped over" the originals (for you younglings, that's a video tape analogy).

As this article commented bitingly, it would have been embarrassing for Lucas if the original version had outsold the "improved" version on home video release. So it was sure convenient for him that it was totally impossible to re-create the original version.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/23493

The article quotes someone named Bill Hunt saying this: "Even if it's true that Lucas and his staff destroyed all of the original negatives, it's unlikely in the extreme that they also destroyed all of the interpositives, all of the separation masters, and all of the release prints. In fact, we know that they didn't." And lo and behold, once George Lucas sold the rights, it turned out to be possible to recreate the original version, and now there's a 4K cleaned-up version.

Wikipedia appears to be trolling you. The original article that the paragraph is based on does not mention the character's minority status at all. Someone added that bit themselves, presumably to anger readers like your good self.

What it does say is that they had Majel Barrett's character in the original series pilot in mind. It's a real shame they got rid of that character, she was actually one of the most compelling and interesting in that show. It seems like Riker took a lot of inspiration from her too.

Battlestar Galactica was far from groundbreaking.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node...

I remain amazed by the number of chances the show took in terms of its approaches to faith (or the questioning there of), its handling of grief and loss, and illustrating the effects of war and adversity on not only adults - but children (notably Noah Hathaway's Boxey). The show impressively nailed its thematics of religion vs pragmatism, military vs government, the haves vs the have nots, father vs son, and suggested a far bigger and bolder universe than its first season - and its considerably less visionary follow-up GALACTICA 1980 - had a chance to fully explore.

Thus, I strongly assert that - despite its many shortcomings and frustrating elements - the 'classic' BATTLESTAR GALACTICA never got its due. It never found the innate corporate support of fan traction that so dramatically characterizes STAR TREK, and was roundly overshadowed by Ron Moore's 2004 reinvention of the concept. Yet, somehow, the original series abides.

“There’s been speculation about some standalone films that are in development, and I can confirm to you today that in fact we are working on a few standalone films. Larry Kasdan and Simon Kinberg are both working on films derived from great Star Wars characters that are not part of the overall saga. So we still plan to make Star Wars 7, 8 and 9 roughly over a six-year period of time, starting 2015. But there are going to be a few other films released in that period of time too.”

I wonder which characters they'll be profiling? Ain't It Cool News says that Yoda is first.

but all of this is based on year-old news, so who knows what the current situation is.

Stallone explains it here in Question #9.

Be careful what you ask for...

I haven't seen the movie since it came out but I don't recall there being any hard sci-fi reason that would explain all organisms having a way to interconnect. The compatibility between all organisims is overly complex and far fetched, and it's hard to think of any plausible reason why that would have come about (based on what I remember).

Terraforming is entirely plausible. Not sure why you classify it as borderline fantasy. There are many things that are plausible and we understand how to do but can't currently do. That doesn't make them borderline fantasy.

Not sure what you mean by "terraforming gravity"...I don't see why they couldnt have only terraformed planets that had gravity similar to earth in the first place.

Avatar had artificial gravity, so I guess that is another strike for it being hard sci-fi. Anyway, I disagree that it is that far-fetched or would require absurd amounts of energy to create it. We don't even fully understand gravity yet...who is to say once it is better understood it cannot be more easily manipulated?

In Avatar, when they are all standing on their ship and not floating, I would say that is the result of artificial gravity. Play with semantics all you like but as stuff was not floating away, they obviously had some sort of artificial gravity.

IN Firefly the conversations were normally with ships in the same area. In the movie when they talk to Mr Universe we don't know how far away he is.

I liked both movies, I just find it funny when people like to say one work of sci-fi is hard and one is not, when both containing things which are far fetched, both contains things we know are not true or unlikely and both contain things which are completely plausible.

this article does a good job of picking apart some of the so called science in Avatar.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/30865 (Point number 9.)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/8072043/77-Inquest-suicide-bombers-used-names-of-A-Team-characters-in-text-messages.html

"Mohammed Sidique Khan and Jermaine Lindsay quoted catchphrases used by BA Baracus, played by Mr T in the 1980s television series, and referred to others as Face and Murdock.
.
.
The terrorists then began to argue over which of them was BA and which was Face. On July 4, Khan, who killed six people at Edgware Road, sent a text to Lindsay saying: “Face you motha---- il rearrange ya face if ya stab me wiv dat needle cos i said i ain’t getin on no plain [sic] fool.” "

Also, this interview with Chris Morris should be obligatory reading for everyone.
Particularly for those people who happen to be elected officials of governments. Terrorists are mostly not criminal masterminds. In most cases, they are utterly inept.
I mean, let's face it - if you are blowing yourself up to defeat your enemy, there is a significant chance that you are doing it wrong.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/47332

Remember this 'un? A Hard Day's Night of the Living Dead. Somebody has on option on a book about Zombie Beatles!! Zombie Beatles!! Zombie Beatles!!, too. Grrr... Help me if you can, I'll eat your brainzzz...

I think the news article is wrong/has outdated information. See http://www.aintitcool.com/node/41848

This sound wrong to me. The last I read was that the two movies would just be the Hobbit, broken into two but with some segments of the book expanded upon. I know there was talk earlier about a non-Hobbit sequel for the 2nd movie, but I don't think that's the way things stand right now unless things have changed again for some bizarre reason. Okay, here's one link: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/41848 "Where as many months ago, writers Jackson, Guillermo del Toro, Philippa Boyens, and Fran Walsh were contemplating the first films as essentially being the Tolkien book, and the second film being a bridge movie between THE HOBBIT and THE LORD OF THE RINGS, Jackson told a select group of online journalists a couple nights ago that that clearly wasn't going to be the case. The two films will be the novel stretched out and supplemented by material from appendices, and other background source material written by Tolkien."

and what lobbyists are you talking about? that's funny

these are the facts (not propaganda):

if you have an obscure artist, and they are not reexposed to a mass audience, they make no money. fact

if an independent artist reexposes the obscure artist, money can be made via ancillary means off that obscure artist again. fact

however, current law means the independent artist cannot reexpose the obscure artist, because they can't afford the rights... to something no one wants... until they get reexposed. fact, fact, fact. something smell weird to you?

http://www.answers.com/topic/annette-hanshaw

Collections of Hanshaw's recording were released on Audio CD in 1999 by Sensation Records. Another revival of interest occurred in 2008 with the indie animated feature Sita Sings the Blues, which retold the Indian epic poem the Ramayana from Sita's perspective by setting scenes from it to performances by Hanshaw.[4]

http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2009/03/17/f-sita-sings-the-blues.html

"I thought about it a good long time before I did it," Paley said in an email to CBC news. "The decision was motivated by both stick and carrot. Stick: the conventional distribution system isn't working any more; independent filmmakers make virtually no money via commercial distributors anyway; copyright today functions as censorship. Carrot: letting people share the film gives it the widest possible exposure and outsources the otherwise expensive and laborious work of distribution, archiving and promotion to the audience; freedom feels great."

Not that she wouldn't mind a donation. The Questioncopyright.org website has made it easy for fans to donate to help Paley with her bills. Because, behind Sita 's story of supernatural struggle lies a titanic clash over copyright.

Much of the soundtrack to Sita is provided by the music of Annette Hanshaw, the 1920s singer who popularized Am I Blue?. The copyright on her recordings was never renewed, but in the U.S. at least, elements of the work remain protected. The rights holders initially wanted a lot of cash before Paley could release her film. Eventually, they came to an agreement: if she paid $50,000 for the rights, she could release as many as 5,000 copies of Sita on DVD. Promotional copies would be exempt.

And that's why Sita is free. It's a promotion.

Some have suggested that Paley should have negotiated the rights before finishing the film. She feels now that the technology has finally arrived to allow a person to make a feature-length film of their own, the copyright laws often prevent independent filmmakers from having their films released.

"I would do nothing differently," said Paley "It costs money even to talk to the copyright holders; when we tried approaching them directly, they gave us the runaround. So, I had to pay a rights clearance house (and a lawyer before that). I didn't have that money back when I started, any more than I have it now. And licensors offer no special discounts for contacting them early. The only 'deals' they make are because someone knows someone who knows someone. That's how the middlemen stay in business. I had other things to do, like actually make the film, and I had no money. I'm glad I focused on making the film."

here's some more "propaganda" for you:

http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=18202

Capone: The songs selections here are inspired at times. I really liked the Gordon Lightfoot song "Beautiful."

V.G.: Thank you. The amount of time I spent choosing the music of the film would be unbelievable to you. The funny thing is, when it's not right, you spend all your time playing songs for people saying, "What do you think of this one? How about this one? How about this one

Theres a pretty good review of the science behind the movie over at http://www.aintitcool.com/node/43440.

I've done it for years and my parents have picked up the habit as well. Here are some relevant links:

An Article About Giving out Comics

Comics 4 Halloween - A promotional movement.
 

Predators shouldn't announce their presence. There's a scene in the trailer where a dino-thing jumps out of the bushes, roars, and runs after people. I see this all the time in action movies where some large animal is about to attack the hero: the predator rises from the bushes (or from behind whatever), bellows, then rushes to attack. But in that split-second, our hero is able to throw himself behind cover, narrowly avoiding being eaten.

Actually... no. You are judging the scene from a handful of out of sequence and cut-off shots.

Here is how that scene actually plays.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/41793

One of the first things we see on the planet is Worthington's Avatar playing with these tube-snake-like flora. He touches one and it disappears, sucking back into the ground with a FROOMPF. He's delighted, playing around in this field of tall plants, making them disappear with a touch until he does that to one and it reveals a really pissed off giant rhino lookin' thing with a hammerhead nose.

It brays at Worthington's Avatar and stamps its feet, threatening to charge. The Moore Avatar and Sigourney Weaver Avatar are with-in shouting distance and Weaver stops him from using the giant machine gun he's carrying, saying the hide is too tough and that shooting it will only piss it off.

The Worthington Avatar is unsure of what to do, even thought Weaver is telling him this rhino thing is just putting on a threat display and won't charge if Worthington stands his ground. There's a herd of rhino-aliens behind this one, which keeps braying and using his hammerhead horn nose to knock down trees. It shows its displeasure by a colorful ruff raising (like peacocks feathers but armored).

The creature doesn't seem to know it's just a territorial threat display and charges Worthington's Avatar who just charges it right back, screaming. It stops and looks confused, then scarred, turning back and running away with the heard.

Of course that means a slick-skinned panther-like creature is behind Worthington. It leaps over him and charges the bigger game, which runs off... then it turns and realizes there's another smaller, but just as tasty morsel right in front of him.

Apparently, the predator-creature WAS all sneaky and hidden, going after the "rhino-aliens" but Jake's avatar alerted one of those who started to charge at him, in turn making the predator-creature think it's cover is blown and it's under attack so it turns from a hunter into a defender, roars and attacks.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/42087

lol

Plot (and more) has been known for some time now.

You could find just as serious or worse flaws in Star Wars or the Matrix. I mean really, the Aliens in Star Wars just acted like humans in latex and makeup.... basically hokey actors in rubber suits. That doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't a great movie and certainly doesn't detract from the fact that it was ground-breaking.

I was criticizing the parent because he was dimissing the movie WITHOUT EVEN HAVING SEEN IT!

As AintItCool.com says All I can really say is this, "Have you seen DISTRICT 9?" Because if you haven't. You can't even enter the conversation yet As far as groundbreaking, I said nothing about the plot. I basically said the camera editing and the alien integration into the movie as a special effect alone are enough to be considered a huge jump forward. When you consider what they did on a $30 Million budget -- then yes, this movie is revolutionary -- it looks better than other movies from earlier this year produced on budgets 10 times greater.

Furthermore, despite some flaws, I found the plot is unique and compelling. So did nearly 90% of the "professional" reviewers out there.

You saw it. You didn't like it. You're entitled to your opinion. But this guy didn't even see the film and he's trashing it.

better than children of men or eternal sunshine of the spotless mind

http://aintitcool.com/node/42012

When I went into this film, I knew that the budget was $30 million. I knew that no name actors were involved, that it was a first time director, who had impressive short film work and who was the man directing the HALO movie for Peter Jackson... back before that fell apart. So, I expected great things, but you know... you never know.

At the budget... well, JULIE & JULIA cost $10 million more. How big could this really be? THE HANGOVER cost $5 million more. How "big" could this film be?

This is EPIC science fiction taking place in a Shanty Town outside Johannesburg, South Africa. This is, to me, the most accomplished, provocative and intelligent science fiction I've seen in this new century. On Twitter I declared that this is the first great science fiction film of the 21st century - and was instantly slammed by people that love CHILDREN OF MEN and SUNSHINE. All I can really say is this, "Have you seen DISTRICT 9?" Because if you haven't. You can't even enter the conversation yet, and this is a conversation that you will want to be in on.

and it won this weekend box office

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/movies/17box.html

LOS ANGELES -- The low-budget alien movie "District 9" was No. 1 at the weekend box office with an estimated $37 million in ticket sales, a stronger than expected result fueled by a quirky marketing campaign.

"District 9," an R-rated social satire about a spacecraft that stalls over Johannesburg, cost only $30 million to make. Peter Jackson of "Lord of the Rings" fame was the driving force as a producer, and the 29-year-old Neill Blomkamp, whose previous feature experience is almost entirely confined to visual-effects work, was the director.

the backstory is this south african guy blomkamp was hired by peter jackson to direct a big screen rendering of halo, but then sony backed out of financially backing the deal (conspiracy theorists, take note of sony's video game console conflicting interests here). this was after blomkamp, jackson, wife, and crew had devoted a considerable ramping up of effort on the movie. jackson, feeling chagrined, pretty much said to blomkamp: so, uh, i feel bad, so is there another movie you want to make? the idea was to expand a short blomkamp made about aliens living in a shanty town in johannesburg. as an added unlikely twist, jackson let him star a complete acting unknown who was just his old friend and more of a producer, and not much of one at that: sharlto copley

and thus scifi was history was made

if they made the halo movie, i bet it would be a $200 million popcorn muncher for 10 year olds that would barely eke out a profit after marketing costs and would be utterly forgotten after viewing, like gi joe and transformers this summer. sure, those are fun movies, but do they challenge your mind? and thus, no one will care about them in a month. devoid of any impression-making and watered down to pap by hollywood suits taking meetings with the producer and director

but instead of halo, we get a smart, 30 million historical utterly groundbreaking and original piece of cinema. not bad for a barely known visual effects dude

in a way, thank you sony, for being such asses, but mostly, thank you jackson (yet again) and blomkamp for blowing our minds

more backstory:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/movies/06district.html

The plight of the film's crustaceanlike extraterrestrials can be easily read as a metaphor for the persecution of South African blacks under apartheid. But Mr. Blomkamp said he was also trying to comment on how the country's impoverished peoples oppress one another. While "District 9" was b

I don't think anyone who worked on the recent BSG is involved in this movie. Except maybe Larson, but I don't know that he did a lot of new work for the recent series.

Also, here is my dream cast for the new movie:

Bill Adama: The Rock Saul Tigh: Harrison Ford Starbuck: Kristen Stewart Lee Adama: Shia LaBouef Boomer: Kelly Hu Number Six: Dakota Fanning Gaius Baltar: Chris Evans

(I'm not the AICN poster of this, I just found this post hilarious)

robert rodriguez is producing a new predator movie, called predators (like alien is to aliens?). perhaps on the predator home planet, again, completely ignoring the whole avp bullshit

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/40865

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/40879

additionally, the director will be some hotshot hungarian horror director named nimrod antal. aintitcool had an interveiw with rodriguez about the project:

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/41590

robert rodriguez is producing a new predator movie, called predators (like alien is to aliens?). perhaps on the predator home planet, again, completely ignoring the whole avp bullshit

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/40865

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/40879

additionally, the director will be some hotshot hungarian horror director named nimrod antal. aintitcool had an interveiw with rodriguez about the project:

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/41590

robert rodriguez is producing a new predator movie, called predators (like alien is to aliens?). perhaps on the predator home planet, again, completely ignoring the whole avp bullshit

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/40865

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/40879

additionally, the director will be some hotshot hungarian horror director named nimrod antal. aintitcool had an interveiw with rodriguez about the project:

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/41590

it's Official-er!

I can't help but wonder what kind of dork I am, that I really want to see the new Star Trek movie... but mainly just to see if the Aptera 2e that was present during filming made it into any shots ;)

Here

Is Watchmen really a failure? I mean, for an R-rated comic book movie, it's doing pretty well in my opinion. But that's not really the subject of the article.

The problem with Watchmen is not the R rating, at least in my opinion. The problem is the changes made to the ending that really changed the tone of it, and thus changed the meaning of the ending.

Let's look at it this way. Watchmen is a source material about which people are passionate. It was a seminal piece of comic book art, a graphic novel before there were graphic novels, and as the first of a genre it has a rather devout following. I know, I read it on first release... and re-read it... and re-read it... and yes, I loved it. However, in the intervening years (decades? OMG... I'm old!) I have not touched the source material and as such somewhat grew away from it. I re-read it last year as an adult and although I still found it to be an incredible piece of art, I found that it didn't resonate with me the same way it did when I was 13 and 14 (when it was first released). I still loved it, but in the way you do an ex girlfriend with whom you had a "soft breakup" because you grew apart instead of a difficult one.

I went to see the movie, and was blown away. 90% of the movie was damned close to the comic book... closer than I would've expected from Hollywood... and it would've been impossible to get that close without an R rating. The original comic book should have had an R rating as well! The ending though, had a different meaning for me than the comic. I won't spoil it here, but it IS different. However, for me it did not fundamentally change the tone of the entire movie... and in fact I think the comic book ending would've been less accessible to a more general audience and probably would've looked somewhat ridiculous on screen.

OK, call me an heretic. I enjoyed both of them but for different reasons. But the R rating is not the reason for the lackluster box office!

Here's my theory; the box office taking are low because of two things; (1) The Watchmen is a comic book that appealed to a niche, and (2) that niche is typically the very technically savvy.

OK, let's expand on that a little:

(1) Watchmen didn't appeal to a wider audience because it had a lot less exposure. Batman, Superman, Spiderman, Iron Man... all highly identifiable characters with a long history in print. All of them are part of the common consciousness that we have in the Western world, and all are characters we can visualize easily. Rorschach, Nite Owl, Doc Manhattan... who? These were all characters created for Watchmen because Alan Moore wasn't given the go-ahead to use the characters he wanted to... those with an history.

The upshot of this is that we have characters that only a small subsection of our society identifies with because they never really got into the social consciousness the way the more "iconic" characters did. This means that Hollywood produces a Watchmen movie, and the characters are new to the average viewer... and the average viewer doesn't want new; they want more of the same.

There's also this idea in the public consciousness that superhero's are always good, always doing the right thing. Watchmen's moral ambiguity on the part of ALL of the characters means that the average viewer won't identify their icons within the context of the movie, and thus won't connect with them. They're looking for simple... black and white. Watchmen is full of shades of grey.

(2) Because the subset of society is mostly tech-savvy, it means that they are going to read reviews of the movie before they go see it, usually written on websites by people with similar tastes... the blind leading the blind in a sense. This leads to one or two slightly negative reviews driving away the very core audience that was most likely to see it.

I refer in part to Massawyrm's review of Watchmen on Aint It Cool News (for which I can't find a direct link right now, sorry!) in which he slammed the movie

A few other interesting reviews:

Onion AV Club review.
Massawyrm's review (which I was surprised at.)

Fox acquired rights to the "Watchmen" graphic novel in the late 1980s for the producer Lawrence Gordon
...
Mr. Gordon later pursued the project with Universal Pictures, and then with Paramount Pictures, before shooting it with Warner and Legendary under an arrangement that allows Paramount to distribute the film abroad.

Looks to me like Mr. Gordon has some explaining to do.

As forpeople who think "Fox waited till Warner Brother's practically had the film released before they bothered to excercise their copyright on the film", you and your ilk don't know the whole story. Fox could have sent them a nice little note saying they already had the rights, maybe even offered to sell the rights, and Warner just ignored them. Remember, sometimes the best way to punish someone is to let them hang themselves.

As Quint pointed out on Ain't It Cool News, Fox waited till Warner Brother's practically had the film released before they bothered to excercise their copyright on the film, suggesting it might be an attempt to scoop up the cash on a blockbuster they wouldn't have to pay for.

Full article here: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/39578

Bright, colorful uniforms indeed.

I love the fact that they're bluescreening in an Aptera Typ-1e electric car as a "flying car" ;) Hey, saves you money on props...

Obvious caption to this photo: "Is Fake Spock gonna have to choke a bitch?"

if they screw up the release schedule, fox reaps massive ill will from the distributors

if they cancel, fox won't make any money on their claim

what will happen is the lawyers will argue about numbers, fox will get $25 million, and fox will walk away

this happened on the johnny knoxville/ jessica simpson dukes of hazzard movie. the legal wrangling left some producers with a claim on the property with $17 million

someone looks red faced in wb legal, they screwed up

better analysis at aintitcool.com

I will, however, reiterate that, no matter how dire the situation looks (per the filing - which, at 112 pages, is probably longer than the shooting script for X-MEN: THE LAST STAND), you will have your WATCHMEN on March 6, 2009. Fox may be able to get away with mugging a rival studio for eight figures, but they're not going to actively impede the rollout of a $100 million-plus motion picture. Though Rupert Murdoch and his garbage-greenlighting toady Tom Rothman are certainly a pair of ruthless operators, knocking a potential blockbuster off the spring release schedule would be bad, bad, bad for the movie business in general (e.g. I can't imagine the exhibitors, who've been cycling through tepidly performing Fox releases all year, would be terribly pleased).

The question right now is whether Fox will settle for a lump sum buyout or a percentage of the gross. My guess is that they'll gladly take the former - and I'm quite sure they've already a number in mind. $10 million? Too low. $50 million? Too high. $25 million? If David Poland's numbers make sense, The House of Rothman should be happy with that haul - especially since there's no guarantee that WATCHMEN will catch on with rank-and-file moviegoers. (I might've been one of those dipshits who lowballed THE DARK KNIGHT's domestic take, but there was still no doubt it would make more than BATMAN BEGINS. WATCHMEN isn't a franchise; it's a standalone gamble. And an R-rated one at that. There's no telling at the moment if it'll bomb or hit.)

When I went to see THE CLONE WARS in Los Angeles, I was told there was an embargo on reviews until the day of release....The review is off the site until Friday.

"When I went to see THE CLONE WARS in Los Angeles, I was told there was an embargo on reviews until the day of release."

From one of the summary's linked articles. So at least some people clearly did. The taken down articles did too. The ones that are still up are a mixed bag, but they weren't under an embargo (MSNBC's is negative, and the above embargoed one is positive, so its not just banning negative reviews).

Why they did it that way is a mystery, but they're completely within the rights to say "we'll give you an advance screening if you don't post your review until Friday." They could just as easily say "we don't trust you, so you can buy a ticket on opening night and then review it later."

Really, the whole thing is pretty routine. Its only turned into a big deal because... well, I'm not sure. Maybe out of a sentiment of sticking it to The Man®. But its not a free speech issue, and its not a reviewer integrity issue. There's nothing anywhere here that says "its embargoed unless its positive."

At least, according to AintItCool's reply.

in the thread on the tragedy of the anticommons, but it seems even more relevant to this topic

on the subject of intellectual property and the rare souls reviving old media through blood sweat and tears, the filmmaker vincent gallo said this four years ago:

Capone: The songs selections here are inspired at times. I really liked the Gordon Lightfoot song "Beautiful."

V.G.: Thank you. The amount of time I spent choosing the music of the film would be unbelievable to you. The funny thing is, when it's not right, you spend all your time playing songs for people saying, "What do you think of this one? How about this one? How about this one?" You're dying, when you're on that level. When you hit it, it's so obvious and you immediately get a desperate feeling that says, "How am I going to get the rights? Are they going to fuck me on the rights to this song?" And guess who are the worst people in the movie business. The licensing people. They are most miserable, mean, selfish, insensitive, regressive, unproductive on the planet earth. You don't know what it's like to feel so strong about something and not have a budget to make that go away. It's not like I was looking to get some Paul McCartney song for my movie; I'm talking about esoteric music. Some of the music in the film didn't even exist, I had to rebuild the original master tapes that had decomposed. I had to re-bake the tape stock, the emulsion on the tape had peeling off. I'm the only person in the world who would salvage this particular recording because I had an original three-track machine and I knew how to bake that type of Ampex tape. The tape would have disappeared in two more years, and it's highly spliced. Then to be ballbusted for a year and a half on the licensing on that music. We talk about how long it took for me to get the film out after Cannes was because the film wasn't ready due to negative problems. I wanted to use this technique to blow up the negative in a new way. That's why I waited so long to finish the film. But it turns out that I would have had to wait seven, eight months anyway was the releases for the music. If you were dealing with the musician directly, you wouldn't have these problems. It's the people representing these artists that kill the process. I realize if you want to use the Beatles song "Revolution" to sell eyeglasses, I understand the exploitation of that. I understand that I'm using culturally significant relics to manipulate people into attaching those to my product. But if I'm using a rare piece of music by and unknown artist, not to brag, but the people whose music I use in my films sell way more records than they were selling before they were in my film. Proof of it is, the Italian artist who did this one jazz piece in my movie had sold 600 copies worldwide before my movie. Before my film was released just on the announcement that they were included people tracked down the music, and they sold something like 6,000 more copies. Why you're treated like you're exploiting this music makes no sense. If they're going to make a tough deal for you, just be up front about it. But this sort of, "We don't have time for you. What do you want?" stringing along is nonsense. And I'm the producer on THE BROWN BUNNY. I didn't have a music supervisor. I did the licensing for BUFFALO 66 and THE BROWN BUNNY. And of all my memories of making the film, that's my most painful memories.

bottom line: revive old media, bring renewed attention AND SALES to a long forgotten artist and piece of music, and expect the corporate intellectual property assholes to punish you for effort

thats the state of intellectual property today

i'm no big fan of his work, but he obviously takes his work very seriously, and he has won amount of critical acclaim, so these words from him mean a lot to me (an interview from aintitcool.com from 2004):

Capone: The songs selections here are inspired at times. I really liked the Gordon Lightfoot song "Beautiful."

V.G.: Thank you. The amount of time I spent choosing the music of the film would be unbelievable to you. The funny thing is, when it's not right, you spend all your time playing songs for people saying, "What do you think of this one? How about this one? How about this one?" You're dying, when you're on that level. When you hit it, it's so obvious and you immediately get a desperate feeling that says, "How am I going to get the rights? Are they going to fuck me on the rights to this song?" And guess who are the worst people in the movie business. The licensing people. They are most miserable, mean, selfish, insensitive, regressive, unproductive on the planet earth. You don't know what it's like to feel so strong about something and not have a budget to make that go away. It's not like I was looking to get some Paul McCartney song for my movie; I'm talking about esoteric music. Some of the music in the film didn't even exist, I had to rebuild the original master tapes that had decomposed. I had to re-bake the tape stock, the emulsion on the tape had peeling off. I'm the only person in the world who would salvage this particular recording because I had an original three-track machine and I knew how to bake that type of Ampex tape. The tape would have disappeared in two more years, and it's highly spliced. Then to be ballbusted for a year and a half on the licensing on that music. We talk about how long it took for me to get the film out after Cannes was because the film wasn't ready due to negative problems. I wanted to use this technique to blow up the negative in a new way. That's why I waited so long to finish the film. But it turns out that I would have had to wait seven, eight months anyway was the releases for the music. If you were dealing with the musician directly, you wouldn't have these problems. It's the people representing these artists that kill the process. I realize if you want to use the Beatles song "Revolution" to sell eyeglasses, I understand the exploitation of that. I understand that I'm using culturally significant relics to manipulate people into attaching those to my product. But if I'm using a rare piece of music by and unknown artist, not to brag, but the people whose music I use in my films sell way more records than they were selling before they were in my film. Proof of it is, the Italian artist who did this one jazz piece in my movie had sold 600 copies worldwide before my movie. Before my film was released just on the announcement that they were included people tracked down the music, and they sold something like 6,000 more copies. Why you're treated like you're exploiting this music makes no sense. If they're going to make a tough deal for you, just be up front about it. But this sort of, "We don't have time for you. What do you want?" stringing along is nonsense. And I'm the producer on THE BROWN BUNNY. I didn't have a music supervisor. I did the licensing for BUFFALO 66 and THE BROWN BUNNY. And of all my memories of making the film, that's my most painful memories.

so the real perversion here is the guy who discovers something obscure, labors over it to rescue it from decaying media, make it popular again by distributing it in new art, which means more exposure for the original artist, and what thanks does he get for that? HE GETS PUNISHED

that's the state of intellectual property

fuck intellectual property

the entire concept is bankrupt

we need to not just ignore, but we must somehow actively subvert and destroy, to the best we can, the bankrupt, dead concept so called intellectual property

its a dead fucking farce

Won't be in the theatrical movie, but will be on the DVD once it's released: Tales of the Black Freighter.

We could all wear this hat to the movie!

From some of the view pages:

Bat Bike in use

View from the back

Video preview

This picture was also thought to be the Bat-Bike
The new bat-bike?

Some super-big pictures:

Front
Back

A light review
CHRISTIAN BALE was banned from riding Batman's hi-tech motorbike on the set of The Dark Knight - because the producers considered it too dangerous.

The actor said: "Embarrassingly, I didn't get to ride it. There are other motorbikes in the film that I got to burn about on, but not the Batpod - it was deemed too dangerous; they needed me in one piece to finish the damn movie."

Bale says a stunt rider took his place in scenes involving the Batpod in case the actor came off it and injured himself. The machine - described as a steamroller combined with a motorbike and atomic missile - is the caped crusader's latest gadget.

He said the machine was so hard to handle that only one stuntman on the set could ride it without falling off. But he is determined to master the Batpod before the film has its world premiere in New York on July 14.

"I've asked the producers if I can have a go on it before the premiere, so that I really can ride it before I get asked any more of these questions - you can't be Batman and not have been on the bloody Bat bike!"

The Dark Knight is released in the US on July 18 and in the UK on July 25.

From some of the view pages:

Bat Bike in use

View from the back

Video preview

This picture was also thought to be the Bat-Bike
The new bat-bike?

Some super-big pictures:

Front
Back

A light review
CHRISTIAN BALE was banned from riding Batman's hi-tech motorbike on the set of The Dark Knight - because the producers considered it too dangerous.

The actor said: "Embarrassingly, I didn't get to ride it. There are other motorbikes in the film that I got to burn about on, but not the Batpod - it was deemed too dangerous; they needed me in one piece to finish the damn movie."

Bale says a stunt rider took his place in scenes involving the Batpod in case the actor came off it and injured himself. The machine - described as a steamroller combined with a motorbike and atomic missile - is the caped crusader's latest gadget.

He said the machine was so hard to handle that only one stuntman on the set could ride it without falling off. But he is determined to master the Batpod before the film has its world premiere in New York on July 14.

"I've asked the producers if I can have a go on it before the premiere, so that I really can ride it before I get asked any more of these questions - you can't be Batman and not have been on the bloody Bat bike!"

The Dark Knight is released in the US on July 18 and in the UK on July 25.

From some of the view pages:

Bat Bike in use

View from the back

Video preview

This picture was also thought to be the Bat-Bike
The new bat-bike?

Some super-big pictures:

Front
Back

A light review
CHRISTIAN BALE was banned from riding Batman's hi-tech motorbike on the set of The Dark Knight - because the producers considered it too dangerous.

The actor said: "Embarrassingly, I didn't get to ride it. There are other motorbikes in the film that I got to burn about on, but not the Batpod - it was deemed too dangerous; they needed me in one piece to finish the damn movie."

Bale says a stunt rider took his place in scenes involving the Batpod in case the actor came off it and injured himself. The machine - described as a steamroller combined with a motorbike and atomic missile - is the caped crusader's latest gadget.

He said the machine was so hard to handle that only one stuntman on the set could ride it without falling off. But he is determined to master the Batpod before the film has its world premiere in New York on July 14.

"I've asked the producers if I can have a go on it before the premiere, so that I really can ride it before I get asked any more of these questions - you can't be Batman and not have been on the bloody Bat bike!"

The Dark Knight is released in the US on July 18 and in the UK on July 25.

toshiba is indeed creating a new DVD player, yes, this is true. and indeed, the DVD player they are making will not be blu-ray... it will be x-ray, a decepticon character for the upcoming transformers 2 movie. its gimmicky product placement

so everyone calm down, this is merely a movie technology villain, not a villain of movie technology. i mean yes, it is a technology villain from a movie, not a villainous movie tech, i mean... oh forget it

It's worth noting that Star Wars: Episode I got great reviews from Aint It Cool News. So if they are panning Crystal Skull it may actually be a great movie!

media hype:

OMFG there's a negative review of indy 4!

reality:

negative

neutral

neutral

positive

the nyt has the real story: studios are required by law to show movies to exhibitors before they buy films (which is how the party pooper reviewer shogunmaster got to see it), which in today's internet age means that studios (especially control-freak spielberg on this specific issue) are losing the ability to control pre-release media buzz

media hype:

OMFG there's a negative review of indy 4!

reality:

negative

neutral

neutral

positive

the nyt has the real story: studios are required by law to show movies to exhibitors before they buy films (which is how the party pooper reviewer shogunmaster got to see it), which in today's internet age means that studios (especially control-freak spielberg on this specific issue) are losing the ability to control pre-release media buzz

media hype:

OMFG there's a negative review of indy 4!

reality:

negative

neutral

neutral

positive

the nyt has the real story: studios are required by law to show movies to exhibitors before they buy films (which is how the party pooper reviewer shogunmaster got to see it), which in today's internet age means that studios (especially control-freak spielberg on this specific issue) are losing the ability to control pre-release media buzz

media hype:

OMFG there's a negative review of indy 4!

reality:

negative

neutral

neutral

positive

the nyt has the real story: studios are required by law to show movies to exhibitors before they buy films (which is how the party pooper reviewer shogunmaster got to see it), which in today's internet age means that studios (especially control-freak spielberg on this specific issue) are losing the ability to control pre-release media buzz

Here is a link to Part 3

The guy is a bit of a fan boy, but it's easy to get infected by some of what he's saying.

It's clear from reading the comments that most of you don't know what you're talking about in regards to 4E. The rules are far more streamlined, although not to the absurdity known as SAGA. The classes are going to be balanced, but roles will be distinct. However, you will still be functional in and out of battle, even if you're bread and butter roles are mitigated for some reason. Also, no more resting for the night because the mage shot his wad at the first encounter (and burned through his spells). Your toons can even heal themselves to a point, so for early levels a cleric isn't even necessary.

A good glimpse into the 4E world can be found below for what I witnessed and more during the beta:

Part 1
http://www.aintitcoolnews.com/node/35776

Part 2
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/35799

Screenshots of the online system
http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2008/02/25/exclusive-gallery-du.html