Sign In

BobaJett

User Group
Trusted Members
Join date
26-Jan-2016
Last activity
5-Sep-2017
Posts
243

Post History

Post
#1093762
Topic
Scofield version - SW theater recording
Time

This post brings back some memories from a long, long time ago. Ive got a cassette tape of myself and my best friend acting out the entire movie, special effects and all, from 1978/79ish! He was all of the Empire characters and I was relegated to being the rebels, Leia included. 😃 But Im fairly certain, somewhere in the depths of my garage is a cassette of a live theatre recording I took many years ago.

Post
#1076574
Topic
What Was Your Reaction (If You Ordered It In 1978) To The Infamous "Early Bird Star Wars Toy Kit"?
Time

I never got the EBS. Hell, I didnt even know it exsisted until after the fact. But I do remember my first figure, Chewbacca from Service Merchandise! I was only 8 yrs old, but boy was I excited and played with my lone figure until Christmas of 78’ when I got all the figures, a TIE Fighter, an X-Wing and Lukes landspeeder. To date, probably the best Christmas ever. From then on until Jedi, every Christmas was Star Wars heavy.

Post
#1064078
Topic
Rogue One * <em>Spoilers</em> * Thread
Time

canofhumdingers said:

Yeah it wasn’t so much that as it was, “when the heck did they have TIME to do it?” They were in a mad rush to find and retrieve the data file while K-2 was simultaneously helping them search and fending off wave after wave of troopers. At least for Luke and co. it happens in a moment of relative downtime when they aren’t actively running from troops.

It’s not a big deal, just a funny little observation.

Heres my take, I think they did it to lighten their load because they knew they were about to be climbing and felt more comfortable in their lighter weight outfits.

My only two gripes, which have been addressed by others here in the forum, were the lack of stormtrooper continuity and Vader’s actor. In the OT, stormtroopers had to be roughly 6’-6’2" and weigh around 180-200. In R1, they were a hodge podge of body types and heights. Hell, there were even some fat troopers. Not a big deal, but an attention to detail SNAFU none the less. But the biggie to me was the actor who played Vader sucked! His gait was wrong, his hip swivel was not a Vader trait, his body type was not Vaderesque. More attention shoulve been paid to who wore the Vader suit. This guy had skinny legs, hyper extended knees, narrow shoulders (maybe it was the shoulder armor), flat chest etc etc. His battle scene movements werent too bad though. Spenccer Wilding, although a big guy like Prowse, had a more slender swimmers build than Prowse. Prowse had a more square body type which gave the appearance of more girth throughout. Oddly enough, Hayden Christianson did a better job in the Vader suit that this guy.

This post has been edited.

Post
#1058462
Topic
The Force Awakens: 1.78:1 scenes in 2D?
Time

My dumbass is just now getting it! Duh! I wasnt thinking. Thank you for the correction, again. But, again, I am of the opinion still that it would be better if they released a scope disc for folks with anamorphic projectors. As is, like you said, a BD is 1920x816, similar to a 35mm Flat film print. A scope BD would be 1920x1080 and when unsqueezed, you’d have a better projected image than the BD we get now.

Post
#1056851
Topic
The Force Awakens: 1.78:1 scenes in 2D?
Time

Fang Zei said:

Slight correction: you’re mixing up the vertical resolution of 2k with the horizontal of hd. Scope is 2048x856 for 2k cinema and 1920:817 for hdtv.

For 35mm film, traditional 2x anamorphic cinemascope is something like 1880x1550 for 2k.

I thought 2k was 2048x1080. 16x9 HDTV is 1920x1080 and a scope film brings that down to 1920x860ish. If BD would come with an anamorphic scope disc (1920x1080), then you project with an anamorphic lense, youd have a 1920x1080 image which is better than the afor mentioned 1920x860ish image. Granted, to the average joe, theyre probably not gonna notice the difference. But for most folks here, the goal is to get as close as possible to the cinema experience in the home. The thing I dont understand is that 2k and 1080p are nearly the same, but considered different.

Post
#1056838
Topic
The Force Awakens: 1.78:1 scenes in 2D?
Time

Colson said:

BobaJett said:

Thanks for the replies yall. Thats what I thought, but I wasnt quite sure. Basically a non-anamporphic disc will display in a 4:3 AR and when you stretch it all out to look right, youre basically enlarging the pixals which in turn degredates the image. To be honest, despite owning the GOUT, I dont think Ive ever watched it on my 16x9 TV. I wish the powers that be would offer scope copies along with the Bluray. That way youd get the full resolution instead of the 1920x860 or whatever it is.

The Blu-rays do have the proper aspect ratio and resolution, despite their myriad other issues.

No, they don’t. At 1.78:1 they do, but a scope blue ray is roughly 1920x856 or so. When you watch that with a projector, you get a slightly less than ideal image compared to an anamorphic scope theatre experience.

Post
#1056680
Topic
The theatrical colors of the Star Wars trilogy
Time

Ive never seen such clarity like these two frames. But, I really cant see a difference, other than yours is being more contrasty. Granted Im color-blind, but I asked my GF to tell me the difference and she had trouble seeing a difference as well. Perhaps its my monitor, but what am I looking for? At least so I can tell her and see if she sees it. Super cool none the less.

Post
#1053927
Topic
The Force Awakens: 1.78:1 scenes in 2D?
Time

Thanks for the replies yall. Thats what I thought, but I wasnt quite sure. Basically a non-anamporphic disc will display in a 4:3 AR and when you stretch it all out to look right, youre basically enlarging the pixals which in turn degredates the image. To be honest, despite owning the GOUT, I dont think Ive ever watched it on my 16x9 TV. I wish the powers that be would offer scope copies along with the Bluray. That way youd get the full resolution instead of the 1920x860 or whatever it is.

Post
#1053602
Topic
The Force Awakens: 1.78:1 scenes in 2D?
Time

Can someone answer a question for me that I cant seem to find an answer to, even on Google. I feel stupid asking it becasue I should know it already. Im a bit confused when it comes to the term “non-anamorphic.” I often hear that the GOUT version is non-anamorphic, yet it looks no different than any other widescreen offering of SW.

Post
#1053236
Topic
The Force Awakens: 1.78:1 scenes in 2D?
Time

AllAboutThatSpace said:

Very jealous you saw Jedi in curved 70mm! But anamorphic IMAX wouldn’t be possible unfortunately, either in terms of designing the lenses, building the cinemas or getting projection bulbs bright enough.

Yeh, It was a cool theatre here in town. When I got older it was one of my first jobs. I loved working there. The memories remind of the kid in “Last Action Hero”, although the theatre wasnt that ornate, but it still was a cool theatre. In the lobby, there was a wall of fame lined with pictures of movie stars that had visited there from 1940-1980ish along with two marble slabs that were signed by each star. Walt Disney signed it and drew Mickey and Donald next to his signature. Even Anthony Daniels signed it! The lady that worked the box office had been working there since the 50’s and was in nearly every picture in the background of the stars. It was very cool. Even after 30+ yrs working there, she only made minimum wage ($3.35 hr in 87’).
Yeh, I was more or lessing venting because of how theatres have takien a nosedive when it comes to design and advertising. The hardware is top notch, but they fall short on viewing medium. To add to your comment, I guess a 700mm IMAX anamorphic would be so wide at that size youd be hard pressed to see the whole screen. IMAX is great for documentaries or nature flicks, but Im old school and prefer the scope screens when it comes to movies. The least they could do is maintain CIH, thats what bugs me the most. This is the theatre I saw Jedi in.

This post has been edited.

Post
#1052984
Topic
The Force Awakens: 1.78:1 scenes in 2D?
Time

Dek Rollins said:

My problem with IMAX scenes is that the AR shift wouldn’t have to happen if they just did the whole thing in IMAX. Either use IMAX or don’t use IMAX.

Yall may disagree withme and call me an idiot, but even a movie in all IMAX format would suck IMO. The problem with cinemas today is the evolution of going from CIH to CIW. In the old days, and still in some cinemas today, but not many, You had a screen that was typically a Cinemascope AR (2.39:1) with curtains on each side and at the bottom. The bottom curtain was for that rare Super Panavision (2.75:1 AR). If the movie happened to be filmed in Panavision (2.20:1 AR), the curtains would draw in a bit to accomadate the AR. Or, if it was a Flat (1.85:1) they would draw in a bit more. Despite all of that, the height of the screen stayed the same. Now, more often than not, the width is the same but the height changes, which greatly redduces the experience and IMO is false advertisement. Example, I went to see “Logan” the other night. The ticket said “IMAX” and yes, it was in the IMAX theatre. But it wasnt IMAX. It was a 2.35:1 image projected on the IMAX screen.
As far as your question DEK, I say why not film the entire movie in 2.39:1 on 70mm Anamorphic IMAX? The human eyes naturally scan left to right, not up and down. If you had an IMAX size 2:39:1 screen, imagine how immersed youd be. I remember watching ROTJ in 70MM in an old classic theatre on opening day. The screen was originally a Cinerama (curved) screen that was renovated prior to Jedi, but they still kept some of the curve which made it even more immersive. Ill never forget it. I feel changing AR’s are directors being lazy. You can still convey size and height by changin the focal length of the lense or changing where you take the shot. I hate changing aspect ratio and I dont care for IMAX. Its nothing more than a glorified version of our TVs at home, actually not even as wide as our tvs at home. Thats completely counter to what our brains do naturally.

This post has been edited.

Post
#1048103
Topic
When you were introduced to Star Wars for the first time
Time

(1977) As we all know, when SW was originally released, it was only in a few select cities. Once it was obvious everyone loved it, they went into nationwide release. At age 7, I was already a huge sc-fi fan and I remember my parents showing me the ad in the paper for SW showings and telling me it was this new “greatest” sc-fi flick that was getting great reviews. I couldnt wait to see it. We went and saw it on opening weekend in my city, 6/17/77. The moment the Tantive IV came across the screen, I was totally enthralled. At that time, there had been nothing remotely like SW. (Maybe one could argue 2001) SW completely and totally reshaped how movies were made, how they sounded and when they were released.Ive argued this in other threads before, but depending on when you saw SW for the first time can greatly affect how you receive it as a film. After that original showing, I was obsessed with SW. I couldnt get enough. After SW, I saw each installment on opening day/weekend.

Here is one article on how SW changed how movies sounded and how theatres adapted: (How do I post a link where you click "here?"
http://www.tested.com/starwars/460476-star-wars-and-explosion-dolby-stereo/

This post has been edited.

Post
#1033466
Topic
The Star Wars Holiday Special 1978
Time

I watched it the day it aired as an 8 yr old. Then, it was very, very cool. Well, the SW stuff was cool. Even then I couldve done without the singing and Jefferson Starship. But I remember being so excited while watching it. The Boba Fett cartoon was by far the coolest part of it. Fast forward to 10 years or so ago when I got a copy online and burned to DVD. Almost impossible to watch as an adult.

Post
#1033460
Topic
Are the Prequels Even Worth Watching Once?
Time

I tried watching portions of Sith the other night and it was hard. Aside from Mannequin Skywalkers abysmal acting, the script/dialogue made the other decent actor look crappy as well.

One idea I thought of was to edit (greatly) the really cool scenes (preferably no dialogue) into one movie that quickly tells the back story of pertinent details leading up to R1 and then ANH. As bad as they were, there are some scenes that I still enjoy today.

Post
#1030173
Topic
Who were the guys in the gray and black vests with the fireman helemts??
Time

Whoa dudes!! Lets take a deep breath. Just to be clear, Im not rying to poke a hole in the Star Wars canon here. A thought just popped into my head while I was working and it got me to thinking. Thanks for all the answers though.

We know Bail O. uses the Tantive 4, or same model of ship, in the OT. So it stands to reason this was indeed Leias ship, with Leias troops/guards/etc. The Tantive was how she travelled back and forth to work. Assuming that, then the gray/black guys were indeed Alderaanians. Apparently, the political leanings of Alderaans leaders heavily influenced their people, hence the large contingency of similarly dressed troops in the final ceremony of ANH. All Im trying to establish is a long held believe from childhood is that if you wore grey and black with the funny helmet, you were a rebel. Well, thats just not true based on the events of R1 and ANH. Kind of like the “not all muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are muslims” adage.

Post
#1029496
Topic
Who were the guys in the gray and black vests with the fireman helemts??
Time

ATMachine said:

The 1975 second draft refers to “Aquillian rangers” who protect the Rebel ship from the stormtroopers. Perhaps this was their official name at one point. (“Aquillian” comes from “Aquilae,” Leia’s home planet in the 1974 rough draft.)

If thats the case, then it seems all of the staff on hand for the closing ceremony in ANH were Alderaanians. I wonder where the rest of the rebel folks that were at the Yavin moon were? Working on the ships? Guard duty?

Post
#1029495
Topic
Who were the guys in the gray and black vests with the fireman helemts??
Time

DominicCobb said:

If that was the preferred uniform of the rebels, then Leia rebutting Vaders claim at the beginning of ANH was pretty silly, seeing as that there were dead rebel troops laying about and others being taken into custody.

It doesn’t matter if they’re wearing a rebel uniform or not. The fact that they defended themselves against the stormtroopers at all makes them rebels. If Leia wasn’t lying, they would have let the Imperials board peacefully. Her lie was obvious to everyone there. It was done, like the rebel soldiers defending, to buy time for the plans to escape.

Yeh, Kind of. Bu Leia was a member of the Imperial Senate and supposedly on a diplomatic mission. So, if that story was to have any credence, that means that she has been affiliated with the greay and black guys before, otherwise Vader wouldve brought that up in their discussion. The fact they defended against the troopers is a bit flawed as evidenced by R1. the Empire often times did shady stuff behind the scenes to get what they wanted and then covered it up, ie: “inform the senate all aboard were killed.” I think anyone boarded in a violent way by troopers, good or bad, wouldve defended themselves regardless if they were rebel sympathizers. Just a thought though. I have a lot of free time to let my mind wander at work and this thought just popped into my head.

This post has been edited.

Post
#1029445
Topic
Who were the guys in the gray and black vests with the fireman helemts??
Time

Im obviously referring to what we have always referred to as “rebel soldiers.” In ANH, at the beginning, they defend the stormtrooper assault. If they were “known” rebel soldiers, then Vaders interrogation of Leia wouldve been a moot point. SO that leads me to think perhaps they were Alderaanian soldiers/guards or whatever. Perhaps a personal entourage to Leia? But yet, we see many of that type of uniform at the end ceremony of ANH and a few in R1. If that was the preferred uniform of the rebels, then Leia rebutting Vaders claim at the beginning of ANH was pretty silly, seeing as that there were dead rebel troops laying about and others being taken into custody. Or were they another group that were actually rebel sympathizers while at the same time pretending allegiance to the Empire??
Shit, I meant to put this in the random thought thread. My bad! 😦

This post has been edited.

Post
#1029440
Topic
Can Someone Explain the Map to Luke Skywalker?
Time

DominicCobb said:

Cthulhunicron said:

How is not major? It’d be like if the original Star Wars never explained what the Death Star weakness was.

Not at all. It’d be like if the original Star Wars never explained why Leia couldn’t just beam the plans directly to Yavin.

Easy, too big of a file for that distance, and possibly it couldve been traced to the receiving point and the rebel base location revealed. Granted, they had transmissions between Yavin and the Rogue guys, but those were quick verbal transmissions, not large files of information that maybe wouldve been easier to trace. Who knows? In the real world, during my ARMY commo days, transmissions were made to be short and to the point to avoid be located in some instances. Maybe the same applies to transmitting the plans to Yavin.

Post
#1021395
Topic
Rogue One * <em>Spoilers</em> * Thread
Time

joefavs said:

BobaJett said:

I disagree. That line was totally out of character for Vader. Quippy Vader is not. Im quickly going though my head as I type this and I cannot recall one line from Vader in the OT where he quipped. He was always business. Help me jog my memory.

“Apology accepted, Captain Needa.”

😃

Post
#1021391
Topic
Rogue One * <em>Spoilers</em> * Thread
Time

Alderaan said:

Tarkin was completely unnecessary and a real blemish on the film. Leia could have been done with a hologram, but honestly I didn’t mind her at all.

Is your opinion swayed by the fact that you didnt care for the CGI likeness or because you genuinly feel he wasnt needed to connect the two movies? Me personally, I kind of liked it. I think its neat that we have the abilioty to bring someone back from the dead. Granted, they shouldve used different lighting and perhaps even applied some type of blur filter to not make it quite so obvious. But dont you think we needed to see a bit of Tarkin seeing as that he was assigned to the DS?

Post
#1021384
Topic
Rogue One * <em>Spoilers</em> * Thread
Time

FanFiltration said:

For some reason I did not like the bottom part of Darth Vader’s mask. It looked like a flexible rubber pull over to me. And Vader’s walking stride (gate) was noticeably different. Also the voice seems to have been processed quite differently as well.

I agree with your observation of his mask and thought it stuck out like a sore thumb. But, after pulling up some images from the OT, it seems very similar to this go around. I think what was going on in the OT is how he wore his cape. If you look at a few different scenes, often times his cape was covering a good portion of his chin/neck. Also, I think lighting had a lot to do with it. Im with you though, it still bugged me.

To the top