ChainsawAsh

Honestly, I don't know.  But it's essentially a 4GB movie vs. an 8GB movie.

That's why, for that part, you cut in the picture AND audio from the Purist version, until the two match up again, when you switch back to the "Revisited" version.

Well, the "Revisited" version, being a DVD-9, has higher video quality, so I'd use that as a base and the "Purist" version for the things you want to take from it.  And if possible, such as for the duel, I'd use the audio alone from the Purist version, and keep the DVD-9 "Revisited" video for the superior quality.

If I were doing it (and I may still do so after the end of this semester in December), I'd also use Ady's AVCHD to replace the torture droid shot, 'cause I can't fucking stand that lightsaber-y thing in "Revisited."

I wasn't allowed to watch Temple of Doom or Back to the Future Part II for quite a while when I was younger.

I remember being very excited when I finally got to see BTTF2, then being very dejected after it was over and there wasn't anything "bad" in it.

It's been rumored frequently that both McCoy and David Tennant will be in the film(s).  I don't think either has been confirmed as of yet, though.

Just confine your brand of wacky humor to the off-topic section, and you should be good, right?

I have faith in you, Frink.

I don't know if any VFX shots have been altered, all I know is that the audio track has been properly finished and mixed compared to the DVD version.

And I'm sure there has been at least one hybrid cut of Alien 3.

Sluggo said:

ChainsawAsh said:

The first Saw was good.  I saw 2 and 3, and have refused to watch any of the others. 

I saw what you did there.

I don't like a lot of modern horror movies because of the gore.  I try to be careful what I put into my brain and I don't want a lot of gore or smut rattling around in there. 

That's funny, because I didn't see it until you pointed it out.

And I've never had a problem with gore.  There just needs to be a halfway-decent story to support all the gore, which most modern-day "torture porn" flicks just don't have.

I still like Alien 3, despite its flaws.  The extended cut is pretty fantastic.

Speaking of which, anyone remember the extended cut of 3 from the Quad set, where some scenes didn't have complete sound design and they had to use the on-set dialogue with subtitles?  Well, for the Blu-Ray, they brought in Sigourney, McGann, and the other necessary actors to provide ADR for those scenes, and finished up the SFX and such to give it a proper audio mix.  So it will actually feel "complete" this time.  I'm excited for that!

Sluggo said:

So are they filming this in 3-D?

Yes, digital 3D.  Not film.

For the sake of comparison, the previous trilogy was shot on "Super 35," which is 35mm film, shot full aperture, and then cropped to conform to whatever aspect ratio the director/cinematographer wanted.  In the case of LOTR, it was 2.39:1.  This also meant that fullscreen versions have more information on top and bottom, but less on the sides.  (See Terminator 2 and the Harry Potter flicks - at least the first two - for other examples of films shot on Super 35.)

I saw the original trilogy when I was 4 or 5, I believe (1993 or 1994, I know it was about a year or so before the "Faces" VHS set came out).

Hope that helps.  I'm still young (21 now), so there's not much other advice I can give you, as I don't have any kids of my own.

Seriously?  The Alien and Aliens color timing differences are nowhere near as dramatic as with Blade Runner, particularly the Final Cut.

I honestly don't get why color timing is such a huge issue to so many people.  Sure, when it's as obviously cocked up and inconsistent as the 2004 Star Wars DVDs, it IS a huge issue, but something like this isn't even remotely the same thing.

Apocalypse Now is sort of like Blade Runner to me - the first time I saw it, I thought, "Yeah, that was decent.  Don't know what all the fuss is about, though."

A week later, I find myself still thinking about it.

A month later, I'm renting it again, and watching it every day for a week.

And not too long after that, it's been cemented as one of my favorite films of all time - and on top of that, every time I watch it, it seems to get a little better.  What more could I ask for in a film?

The first Saw was good.  I saw 2 and 3, and have refused to watch any of the others.  I still don't know how I was talked into thinking 3 would be any better than 2.

My problem with biopics (and this is coming from someone who likes quite a few) is that most of them are pretty much the same story.  Person gets famous, person starts doing a bunch of drugs, person loses all their friends, then A) person dies young, or B) person overcomes their addiction and redeems his/herself and has a big "comeback," which in real life was about a 1/10 as popular as it was made out to be in the biopic (the comeback, not the original famous-ness).

Yeah, Puggo, you're misreading what the "purist edition" is.  It's "Revisited" - still a fan edit - but with some of the less really radical changes.

I would, however, say that the "ideal centerpiece for such a discussion" would be to discuss the relative merits of Adywan's Empire Strikes Back: Revisited, and his Empire Strikes Back theatrical restoration.  The problem there is, ESB:R isn't out yet.

Anyone playing with Wild Wasteland catch "Owen" and "Beru" yet?  That gave me a laugh.

It's now set to record!

Speaking of which, does anyone know how to get DVR recordings off of an AT&T U-Verse box without re-encoding?  That would help keeping the quality high for the shots that are exclusive to the TV versions.

Here's the thing, Crygor:

I don't care if Lucas wants to keep changing his movies.  Some of the changes he makes are good, some are bad, but he can change it as much as he wants.  I don't, as you say, "condemn George for making changes."

The reason I'm here is because he won't allow the original version to be available in decent quality.  That's the point of this site.  You seem to think it's an anti-SE site, but it's not.  It's a pro-preservation site.  That's what I condemn - the suppression of the originals.

Hell, one of the preservation sets I'm most looking forward to is a preservation of the 1997 SE, because I haven't seen it in at least six years.  Yes, I also believe George should make that version available in decent quality.

Now what Adywan is doing is not replacing the originals.  It's making an alternate version that you can choose to watch, or choose not to watch.  Which is exactly what the Special Editions should be, but aren't, because George won't release the originals.

But hey, guess what else Adywan has done?  He's released a high-quality DVD of the theatrical cut of Episode I, which has never been available on DVD.  He's also released a high-quality DVD reconstruction of the theatrical cut of Empire, which looks substantially better than the 2006 GOUT DVD.  He's doing much of what Lucas should be doing - giving us cool, alternate versions with new effects to keep things fresh, while keeping the original versions available in comparable quality so that the alternate versions stay just that - alternates, not replacements.

TL;DR = Pretty much what Bingowings said, but slightly longer

I don't give two shits.

If they were gonna do a sequel trilogy, they should have stuck with their post-ESB plan and given us an Episode VI with a more open ending, then done the sequel trilogy in 1987, 1990, and 1993, followed by a different prequel trilogy in 1997, 2000, and 2003.

skyjedi2005 said:

So not only is this being shot on video not film, but it is not even being filmed in New Zealand.

This is not confirmed, and Jackson is fighting really hard to keep it in New Zealand.  It's Warner Bros. call at this point.  This should be known for sure by the end of next week.

And as far as anyone knows, Andy Serkis will be back as Gollum and Ian McKellen will be back as Gandalf (both have said they're willing to reprise their roles).  And I can't imagine Jackson not asking Howard Shore to return, and I highly doubt Shore will say "no."

But yeah, you're right, I wish this was being shot on film, and not in 3D.  Ah, well, so it goes.

I'd assume a 1977 movie would have a stereo (or even mono) track for wide (35mm) distribution, while any six-track mix would be reserved for 70mm prints.

captainsolo said:

Same with The Two Jakes.

That's funny - I DVR'd The Two Jakes from Showtime last night.  Never seen it, I'm planning on watching it sometime this week.

Damn, Lucas was already cocking things up as far back as Empire...

Yeah, that's the original.

It may not be the best sound effect in the world, but it's infinitely better than the 2004 howl, or the current one.