This user has been banned.
Easterhay said:
Quite simply, because I come onto this forum every Preston Guild (Northern England colloquialism, just in case you didn't know) and when I do, in the short time that I'm here, I try and address as many comments as time allows before I have to get on with doing the job that puts food on the table.
Lucky us.
Well that's a new weird thing to throw on the pile. As part of a "puppets on film" series, they have to show the version where puppets were replaced.
Yikes somebody is going to get fired for leaking that stuff. I clicked away pretty fast, surprised they had so much.
unamochilla2 said:
Gary Whitta, writer for the first standalone film, has also said his fair of negative comments about the SE and PT.
http://furiousfanboys.com/2014/05/gary-whitta-attempts-to-delete-his-special-edition-prequel-bashing-online/
Boy that blogger really thinks he's blowing the lid off something.
Didn't Terence Stamp talk pretty frankly about the whole thing back then?
This guy is alright
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/25/oscar-isaac-star-wars_n_5881120.html
the humanity
MaximRecoil said:
It isn't the DVD's fault if people display it on the wrong type of TV.
Uh, touché?
MaximRecoil said:
If the GOUT had been released by an OT.com forum member in 2006 instead of by Lucasfilm, it would have set this place on fire, and said forum member would have been an instant OT.com "celebrity".
But why? It was essentially the same laserdisc we had for 13 years up to that point.
I clicked on the twitter for Makingstarwars (the site that reported that the RMW work had been rejected) and they got a reply from some guy claiming the work was merely being revised. Dunno what that means or how legit the guy is. (Hey zombie, how's it going dude)
That article calls it a "conversion" which is weird, but I guess they're just talking about a new 4k scan.
Star Wars actually doesn't seem like a great choice to show off that new 4K format, especially now that the movie is a hodgepodge of iffy 1970s 35mm film stock and 90s computer crap. You would think they'd go for modern movies and large format stuff. I really hope this means that they're giving up on the awful 2011 version (and if this work was begun when GL was still in charge, it surely would have been that) in favor of restoring the originals or releasing a better final cut. Or both.
SilverWook said:
No mention of the new scenes pasted on afterwards of course.
Nobody seems to know if THX was part of the deal. It might be jointly owned/controlled by Warner and American Zoetrope? Disney had to deal with Paramount to fully own Indiana Jones, but THX might not be something they really want.
I think it's all Warner, the DVD has no other studio on it (compared zoetrope stuff like Conversation or Apocalypse Now which are through lionsgate). The main thing to worry about is if Warner signed some unfortunate agreement with Lucasfilm that stated Lucas would pay for all the restoration and enhancements but would have final say over any content.
I think a simple IP sourced disc would look great and feel very authentic. But one thing that doesn't come up often is the YCM separation masters. When Lucas did the interview with Christopher Nolan, he said the cyan layer was out of sync so they were no help. But he was talking about using it as a source for a theatrical rerelease in 1996. Can't they correct for that fairly easily now? The criterion HEAVEN'S GATE used separation masters because the negative had been cut to the short version, and it looks great.
I actually think some of the original shots look better than the recomposited, at least in motion. The extra layers, grain, soft printing etc.was more flattering to the miniatures.(which was certainly a consideration when they lit and photographed them).
the tricky issue with a true 4k restoration is a lot of those shots really are dead and gone. You could either use the digital re composites or you can dupe a shot that is already pretty dupey. Neither is a perfect solution, even Robert Harris ended up using an alternate take for one shot in GODFATHER, so that isn't 100% original. With Star Wars they can use an IP for the whole thing, like Blade Runner and a whole lot of criterions. We should be able to live with that.
The light sabers on the Reliance video aren't the original shots but they don't look like computer recreations either. Are they the original animation composited digitally?
On a side note, over at Home Theater Forum, in the thread on restoring The Alamo, Robert Harris has some hard numbers on what a basic scan and color correction of 35mm elements actually cost and they're so low, it's embarrassing to think there are still people claiming Lucasfilm /Disney can't possibly achieve a decent blu-ray of the originals. (And while you're there, you can also read comically overwrought handwringing about Disney making the attempt in the Star Wars thread. I really can't get enough of blogger types carrying water for billion dollar companies.)
The really bad color issues were introduced at the end of the line, the big fumble right before the goal, when they sat down with George to decide the final color. maybe the samples in the video were from earlier in the pipeline. After the scan (from the negative that had no saber blades at all) and after the new blades were added on, but before everything else.
TFN doesn't represent anything, it's a dipshit ecosystem unto itself.
I hate the 97 version but they might as well include it because any future version is going to be using it as the base, they'll have a great quality version of it before they can go any further, so why not slap it on a disc.
star wars, empire, jedi- 70mm
phantom-35mm clones/sith- digital
Speaking of modern 70s style buildings that no one wants preserved, the recently demolished theater where I saw Empire and Jedi was called Avco, and was the inspiration for the Blue Harvest-style production code name for Episode VII.
http://www.wearemoviegeeks.com/wp-content/uploads/alien-1979-560x406.jpg
The weird thing is it seems like a lot of the same people saying how unreasonable we are and how hard it would be to present an original version also expect some new perfect final cut version with only "the good changes". As if expecting Lucasfilm/disney execs and staff editors to create a new version of Star Wars without George Lucas, is more reasonable to expect than branching 2 crawls and including a mono mix.
It's mind boggling to think there are adults who are just not capable of looking at a forty year old movie in the context of its time, that's just embarrassing.
Tobar said:
It's not that new. I got the same response from almost everyone I tried to discuss it with back at Celebration IV in 2007. Same occurred at a Clone Wars screening I attended in 2010.
Wow, that's amazing. I mean it's not even a complete thought. The movie had a few very slight variations before '97, so....what? Do nothing? There will be chaos if they put out a great looking blu-ray that doesn't have them all? So dumb.
The new dumb comment du jour seems to be "well, which version is the true original anyway? Lucas has been making changes since the beginning! You can never satisfy blah blah". I can't believe how many variations on that I've read since this rumor started.
@nien nunb Yeah when they were doing press for the 2011 box they said all the old mixes have been digitized. We just aren't giving them to you. All the press for that box set was weird. "Here, be grateful for this collection of Robot Chicken and That 70s Show Parodies, you dorks. That'll be 89.99$".
AntcuFaalb said:
http://www.reddit.com/r/StarWars/comments/2dqm18/disney_to_release_original_unaltered_cut_of_star/
This Reddit thread is so fucking depressing.
On the bright side, it seems like there's a lot less of those "George's Vision" cultists still left out there, the guys still clinging to the image of GL as some kind of Kubricky perfectionist, with the special edition as the ultimate expression of that integrity. They were always the worst.
