Will Roger Moore return to Alias?
08-14-02, 07:32 PM
#3
DVD Talk Reviewer
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: WAS looking for My Own Private Stuckeyville, but stuck in Liberty City (while missing Vice City)
Posts: 15,094
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IIRC, I think Sloane was told that RM's character had been taken care of...
I could be wrong. It's been awhile.
I could be wrong. It's been awhile.
08-14-02, 08:04 PM
#4
DVD Talk Special Edition
Yeah, I remember hearing that RM's character was killed off after SD-6 found out about his betrayal. So I don't think we'll be seeing him again anytme soon
08-14-02, 10:39 PM
#5
DVD Talk Special Edition
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 1,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an asside...I'd love to read that full Ebert article about Lucas's director summit...sounds very interesting.
If you don't see him killed off, he isn't killed off.
If you don't see him killed off, he isn't killed off.
08-14-02, 10:45 PM
#6
DVD Talk Reviewer
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: WAS looking for My Own Private Stuckeyville, but stuck in Liberty City (while missing Vice City)
Posts: 15,094
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Kube If you don't see him killed off, he isn't killed off.
Nowadays...even if you SEE a body it doesn't necessarily mean he's dead. Or is that just on soap operas? 
08-15-02, 12:25 PM
#7
DVD Talk Special Edition
Yeah, I really liked RM's character, so I won't be too miffed if they somehow figure out a way to bring him back from the dead. He's like James Bond, 30 years later and evil
--
About Lucas' director's summit, here's a link to the column where I took it from, his weekly Answer Man Q&A. The entirety of the relevant part is also posted below.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/answ-...y-ebert28.html
--
About Lucas' director's summit, here's a link to the column where I took it from, his weekly Answer Man Q&A. The entirety of the relevant part is also posted below.
Q. I was amused by the e-mailer who said he was "convinced of the greatness" of Maxivision, though he had never seen it in use. Cost issues aside, why should Maxivision be considered superior to digital? And why don't we hear more about it in the general press?
David Newbert, Albuquerque, N.M.
A. Apart from the fact that it would cost only eight percent as much to install, would play any film ever made and would not have to be replaced every three to five years, Maxivision is superior to digital projection because--well, because it is. The picture quality is four times as good. A few weeks ago, George Lucas invited a lot of directors up to Skywalker Ranch to lecture them that film was dead and digital was the future. He is a zealot for digital, but I was encouraged that a director like Oliver Stone actually told Lucas, "Film is what we do. It's what we use. You'll be known as the man who killed cinema."
In his demo, Lucas showed them a new digital version of "Monsters Inc." and an old, beaten-up film print. (This was cheating, because "Monsters Inc." was digital to begin with, so film was one generation down.) His point was that digital remains fresh while prints get beaten up over time. True, but Maxivision uses a vibration-free motor and ionized air so that the film is never touched by the projector housing. A valid demonstration would have been side-by-side comparisons of two films shot on celluloid, one projected digitally, the other conventionally. Even more interesting: Maxivision against anything Lucas could throw at it.
Why don't we hear more about Maxivision in the general press? Because the easy solution is simply to repeat the digital mantra. The Los Angeles Times story about the seance at Skywalker Ranch raised serious questions about digital, but seemed unaware that there were alternatives. A heavyweight investment firm, Suisse Bank/First Boston, has issued a research report arguing against digital and in favor of Maxivision, but the press is still mesmerized by the mirage of digital.
David Newbert, Albuquerque, N.M.
A. Apart from the fact that it would cost only eight percent as much to install, would play any film ever made and would not have to be replaced every three to five years, Maxivision is superior to digital projection because--well, because it is. The picture quality is four times as good. A few weeks ago, George Lucas invited a lot of directors up to Skywalker Ranch to lecture them that film was dead and digital was the future. He is a zealot for digital, but I was encouraged that a director like Oliver Stone actually told Lucas, "Film is what we do. It's what we use. You'll be known as the man who killed cinema."
In his demo, Lucas showed them a new digital version of "Monsters Inc." and an old, beaten-up film print. (This was cheating, because "Monsters Inc." was digital to begin with, so film was one generation down.) His point was that digital remains fresh while prints get beaten up over time. True, but Maxivision uses a vibration-free motor and ionized air so that the film is never touched by the projector housing. A valid demonstration would have been side-by-side comparisons of two films shot on celluloid, one projected digitally, the other conventionally. Even more interesting: Maxivision against anything Lucas could throw at it.
Why don't we hear more about Maxivision in the general press? Because the easy solution is simply to repeat the digital mantra. The Los Angeles Times story about the seance at Skywalker Ranch raised serious questions about digital, but seemed unaware that there were alternatives. A heavyweight investment firm, Suisse Bank/First Boston, has issued a research report arguing against digital and in favor of Maxivision, but the press is still mesmerized by the mirage of digital.
