logo Sign In

Fang Zei

User Group
Members
Join date
14-Oct-2006
Last activity
20-Apr-2024
Posts
2,768

Post History

Post
#309628
Topic
Jim Ward steps down
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/309628/action/topic#309628
Time
Originally posted by: Mike O
Obviously they're not going to release the OOT on BR


Why do you say so? Is it only because Ward is now leaving? Close Encounters and Blade Runner got their OV's released on bd. I would hope that forces Lucas to step up to the plate. McCallum mentioned lots of documentaries for the next release. Lucas mentioned on the Charlie Rose show way back in either '04 or '05 how LFL was putting documentaries together for each and every episode of Young Indy. Granted it took forever for those to finally hit the shelves, but it did happen, so I guess it's also a sure bet for the next Star Wars set. For crying out loud, I really do hope they finally get around to remastering it this time. I do see the chance of it not happenning, especially now when it's almost 2 years away at the very least. I just wouldn't say it's obvious that it won't happen.
Post
#309565
Topic
Jim Ward steps down
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/309565/action/topic#309565
Time
I'll probably send in a video to those guys making the "people vs. george lucas" documentary, after I get my thoughts on the matter properly organized.

In terms of predictions though, I would say it's a pretty sure thing that the next release is not happening this year. '09 is a huge maybe, and it's still too far away with too many variables. Avatar has been pushed back to the very end of that year the last time I checked, so maybe Lucas will wait until 2010 or later to do the 3D releases (which I'm still assuming are definitely going to happen at some point). On the other hand there was that report from joblo.com saying they'd be out around Spring of '09, which would make sense if they're going to use it to gear up for the live action series (although I'm also wondering how the animated show is going to pan out. Will it be a limited thing or an ongoing series?). In any event, It's a pretty sure thing we're not seeing the next home video release until after they've played in theaters again, so I guess we'll just have to make the best of the time we have until then.
Post
#309230
Topic
Jim Ward steps down
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/309230/action/topic#309230
Time
Originally posted by: Mike O



How substantiative are the Trek changes?


On the 2nd disc of Star Trek: The Motion Picture (which has only had one dvd release, and it's the director's edition), they actually included all of the deleted scenes from the original version and all of the scenes from the tv version, all in anamorphic widescreen I should add. Basically, with the exception of the original opening and closing credits, they included any material from the various versions that didn't make it into the director's edition.

The Wrath of Khan director's edition added some short scenes, such as Kirk meeting Scotty's nephew. There are also some alternate angles used. I remember seeing a youtube pointing out that there are a few additional differences between this version and the tv version. Whoever made it basically spliced in footage from an off-the-air videotape recording.

I'm not sure if there are any differences between the single and 2-disc releases of Undiscovered Country, aside from anamorphic widescreen of course. The version on the 2-disc definitely isn't the theatrical cut since it has the operation retrieve scene.

Spoiler warning if you haven't seen Star Trek VI:

One funny thing I should point out is that when I watched the 2-disc for the first time I remember actually noticing a difference in the edit. After Valeris has been exposed as a conspirator and she's standing on the bridge with everyone asking her questions, McCoy at one point says "and what do you think you've been doing" and Valeris replies "saving Starfleet." The reason I noticed the difference is that on the dvd there's actually a cut to the angle that's just on McCoy when he says that whereas I definitely remember watching the movie back in the day either on tv or on vhs and there was no cut to McCoy when he says that and it always seemed awkward to me because his voice seemed to be coming from nowhere. Then I read the text commentary on the dvd and sure enough there was a difference.

This is what makes me wonder if the cut on the single-disc version is different.

Beyond that, I can't really say what all the various differences are in the cuts of the Trek films. Of the old single-disc releases the only ones I've actually seen are Generations (rented it back in the spring of '02 because I felt like watching it again, yea, don't ask) and Nemesis (rented it in summer of '03 since I'd missed it in theaters).
Post
#309163
Topic
Jim Ward steps down
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/309163/action/topic#309163
Time
I'm cutting anything from the special edition restoration onward out of the equation. I mean, there's what, several hundred differences between the SE and the OOT? Has any professional studio actually reconstructed an earlier version of one of their films in such a way instead of simply transferring an older print/IP? Whenever I talk about "those interpositives" I mean the most recently struck pre-SE IP, but for all I know that could be more than twenty years old at this point and beyond any hope of restoration. Going the route of private collectors (as suggested by Bill Hunt) and getting Criterion to spearhead it (as suggested by Jay) might be the only real option available.
Post
#309146
Topic
Jim Ward steps down
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/309146/action/topic#309146
Time
Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
Originally posted by: generalfrevious
Well, we'll have to accept the laerdisc ports for the next 20-30 years; maybe someday well get a remastered OOT, but probably not in the first half of this century. Unfortunately, they'll have to try to recreate what it was in 1977 from the GOUT. But until hell freezes over Im jumping over to the star trek crowd until then.

Not sure how that would be a much better camp as far as this discussion goes. It's impossible to get the original theatrical versions of Star Treks I, II, and VI in an anamorphic DVD either.

Since I think it was you who brought this subject up in another thread, I'll cut you some slack for getting it wrong since I was actually going to list the specs of each original version's release and didn't get around to it.

The first dvd release of II was the original theatrical version and it was an anamorphic transfer.

Paramount released the old single disc editions in a weird order, it went something like this IIRC:

-First Contact, anamorphic, either day and date with the vhs in '97 (if it wasn't before the dvd format debuted ....) or a year later in '98
-Insurrection was day and date with the vhs in '99. I remember when we got our first dvd player in late spring of '99 (it was a father's day present to my dad) and going to see if the video store had a copy to rent and they were out so I rented it on pan n' scan vhs instead and watched it in the basement (I hadn't seen the movie at all yet in case you were wondering why I wanted to rent it).
-Of the pre-'97 movies, I think V and VI were released first for some reason (probably because they were the more recent movies). They were both non-anamorphic and VI was the home video cut with the operation retrieve scene and a few other differences.
-Generations was non-anamorphic
-Wrath of Khan was released in 2000 (I still remember seeing the Best Buy ad in the paper where it was listed under new releases coming out that Tuesday and thinking how odd (and yet cool at the same time) it was that they were starting with II). It was anamorphic, single layer and it was the original version. Search for Spock and Voyage Home were the same way, except Voyage Home was dual-layer.

It's funny, I actually saw a bunch of the old discs in the used section of an independent store early last year and was tempted to pick up II since it's the original version. I dunno, I guess I'm just hoping (just like with Star Wars) that they'll go all out for the inevitable hi-def release and put both versions on there.

EDIT: yea, knew I shouldn't have bothered to type all that out and wait to hit the button. Baronlando beat me to it.

Originally posted by: Mielr
Originally posted by: zombie84
True, but having said that all we got with Ward was a Laserdisk port.

At least he was able to accomplish that much.

However, the creation of a new petition on this site is long overdue: the OOT on Blu-ray.


"Existing prints are in poor condition." This quote from the form-response email sent out by LFL back in May of '06 to all of us outraged fans should be our starting point for the new petition. "So, they exist, and you could give us a remaster using them, you're just not going to?" should be our response. On the other hand, we need to first verify what exactly they mean by "existing prints." Does this mean they are acknowledging the fact that private collectors have prints of the OOT or does it in fact mean LFL actually still has some (or even some interpositives) lying around in the vault?
Post
#309096
Topic
Jim Ward steps down
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/309096/action/topic#309096
Time
If Ridley Scott himself had been adamantly opposed to including anything besides the Final Cut in the new dvd, even though he doesn't own the rights to his movies, I still somehow doubt we would've gotten anything besides the Final Cut. Zombie is dead on in that assessment. It annoys me to no end that LFL let the sole motivating factor behind the '06 release be money.

That's the problem here with Star Wars. Lucas keeps going on and on and on about how it's his movie (and from a financial/legal standpoint, it is). But this is yet another bit of revisionism, isn't it? Back in 1980 he told Kershner to fly to the London premiere of TESB without him since it was his movie (Kersh's) and not Lucas'. He's just lucky that Kershner doesn't have a problem with the changes Lucas has made to his (Kersh's) movie. Let's not even get into the argument that Lucas was justified in changing the late Richard Marquand's work since "he directed some of the movie, so it's his to do what he wishes with."

If they finally get it right with the hi-def release, all will be forgiven. But as baronlando put it, it's quite bizarre to think of what we fans are dealing with in the meantime.

Also, comparing Ward to de Lauzirika is apples to oranges in my opinion. While CdL had some association with Scott's company, Blade Runner's restoration and subsequent royal treatment on dvd/hi-def was done out of respect for the material more than anything else. Ward, though he did at least get Lucas' attention over the OOT matter, just works for the guy at the end of the day. I would think he's more experienced in the realm of business than he is in the realm of producing. Star Wars still awaits its Charles de Lauzirika, whoever that ends up being.
Post
#309068
Topic
Jim Ward steps down
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/309068/action/topic#309068
Time
Baronlando,

Those have pretty much been my exact thoughts on the matter, and even if Ward had stayed I doubt he would've been the person to give us what we want after trying and basically failing the first time around. Don't get me wrong, I give him credit for at least bringing all of this to George's attention, I just don't see why he would've bothered any more with it after what George ended up doing (and, as I've stated in the past, I almost wish they'd just pulled the plug for the time being instead of insulting us with such a half/no-assed effort).
Post
#308989
Topic
Jim Ward steps down
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/308989/action/topic#308989
Time
Like I said in another thread, Lucas hasn't gotten around to giving the movies the royal treatment because he doesn't need to. The Blade Runner Partnership, on the other hand, can only really make money off the sales of the movie itself because (and this is even brought up on one of the featurettes) it's hard to even find any kind of memorabilia/collectibles from the film. The real irony is that all of the versions of the movie weren't released until now because of the legal holdup whereas Lucas has always been able to give the original versions the best possible treatment and simply hasn't.
Post
#308900
Topic
Jim Ward steps down
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/308900/action/topic#308900
Time
Weird, and just this morning I was thinking up yet another possibility for a Star Wars release that would satisfy everyone....

in case anyone was wondering, it was this:
for each movie of the OOT it would go-
-one disc mastered from the 35mm interpositive of the original release with all of the soundtrack options. I guess they could also master the 70mm version and put it on a separate disc, but I get the impression that going to see a 35 movie in 70 was kind of a novelty back in the day, sort of like seeing an IMAX print in this day and age.
-one disc mastered from the 35mm interpositive of the '97 SE release.
-one disc mastered from the Lowry-restored version, which I'm assuming is what they're using to make the 3D release. If they really wanted to go all out, they could seamlessly branch the 2004 version in there as well.

In regards to Ward leaving Lucasarts, I wonder what the "personal reasons" were. It would also seem that we need to wait and see if he is leaving Lucasfilm altogether or just leaving Lucasarts. I wonder how this is going to affect The Force Unleashed, if at all.
Post
#308581
Topic
Is George Lucas a fan of Star Wars?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/308581/action/topic#308581
Time
If we have to wait until the hi-def release for Star Wars to get the proper treatment, then so be it. We've already had to do that with Close Encounters and Blade Runner. Why should Star Wars be any different?

In regards to the whole whether-or-not-George-is-a-fan question, there's something that occurred to me while at work yesterday. It never fails to amaze me how there's always yet another younger generation of kids who are fans of Star Wars. I mean, the last movie came out almost 3 years ago and I still see kids that can't be much older than 7 raving about Star Wars. I dunno, maybe it's not as common as I'm getting the impression it is. After all, there are a lot of kids out there besides the ones who stop by the Lego store. But if it is as common as I'm getting the impression it is, I'm wondering why. Maybe since their parents grew up with the originals there's just a carryover, who knows.

Anyway, the reason I bring all this up is that it really hit me today just how popular Star Wars still is among really young kids. I thought of all the extras I was watching on the new Blade Runner set and how that was just an R-rated movie that didn't do very well when it opened. Then I think of how everyone saw Star Wars when it was first released, and how Lucas - whether he even realizes it or not - still has a large audience due largely to the fact that so many young people saw it and fell in love with it back in '77 and eventually passed it on to their own kids, OOT or no OOT. I'm lucky to be part of that generation born in the years just after the OOT was released and that I first saw the movies many years before that night in November of '96 outside the multiplex when my mom told me "there was a trailer saying the Star Wars movies are getting re-released starting in January."

Here's my ultimate point with all of this: The fact that there are - even today - lots of kids who are into Star Wars doesn't help people (including Lucas) to take it seriously as a movie. Lucas hasn't shown it the proper respect because HE DOESN'T NEED TO. He has yet another generation of kids to make money off of before he worries about film fans, and no, I don't think that's being harsh of the guy. Not when we're carrying sets from The Force Unleashed and The Clone Wars many months in advance of their actual release and yet the best quality you can get the ACTUAL MOVIE in is 1993 am I being too harsh.
Post
#307781
Topic
Is George Lucas a fan of Star Wars?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/307781/action/topic#307781
Time
y'know something? All of my bitching and complaining about the his treatment of the OOT aside, there's something Lucas said back in '99 (I think it was the 60 minutes interview) and also something that a good friend of mine said about Lucas making the prequels that rings true. In that interview he was asked "why have you decided to keep making these movies?" and he simply answered "because I have to." What my friend said (and I think this was pretty soon - maybe only a few months - after ROTS came out) is that "Lucas didn't have to make more Star Wars movies but he did anyway." So I think what Lucas really meant was that no one was forcing him into it but him.

Now, getting back to my bitching and complaining about the OOT ....
Post
#306911
Topic
Blu-ray Disc or HD-DVD?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/306911/action/topic#306911
Time
Funny, so far the only way I've invested in either format is by getting the blu-ray disc of Blade Runner. I don't even have an HDTV! It's just that I already have the old dvd and the 2006 remaster, which I picked up knowing full well that it would likely be included in the '07 set. When the final cut was released I took the bus up to NY to see it on opening night and then saw it twice more when it opened in DC. Several factors led to me getting it on bd. The biggest is probably that the documentaries would all be on regular dvd's that I could, y'know, actually watch. Those were the only things in the set I was really dying to see anyway since I've already seen the original version (letterboxed on that scifi channel broadcast back in June of 2000, wish I'd taped it!) and of course the 1992 and 2007 versions. Also, between those three versions I kinda feel like I've already seen the international version, so I'm not really dying to watch that either. I can wait to watch the workprint. I didn't find out about discs 2 and 4 being regular dvd's until I read a review of the set, and then WB announced their plan for blu-ray exclusivity. I'd already been hoping for various reasons that it would be the format they'd go with anyway. That, coupled with the fact that I'd have to shell out for the briefcase just to get all five discs on regular dvd, plus the fact that I already have both of the old releases made it a no brainer to get it on either hddvd or blu-ray and not regular dvd.

anyway, here's my perspective on the whole thing:

If VC-1 is as good as a whole lot of people are saying it is, it won't go away for a while (if at all) as long as blu-ray is still around as a format. Microsoft will continue making royalties off of sales of bd's using that codec. Toshiba is screwed, yes, but let's not forget that blu-ray players are backward compatible with dvd and so toshiba will keep making some sort of royalty off the sales of bd players. Time Warner must've not really ever had much faith in hddvd since they've been format neutral for just about as long as blu-ray's been on the market. Maybe the aforementioned standard dvd royalties coupled with whatever deal they signed with the BDA made it that much easier to just drop hddvd altogether. WB probably also looked at the really big picture and saw hddvd exclusivity as prolonging the race and keeping either format from really taking off, though who is to say what would've happened had they not sided with blu-ray?

One thing I said several months ago is that once one of these formats wins and becomes the new standard, it'll be all we ever really need. I still stand by that because just as vhs, beta and laserdisc were the first analog tv formats, hddvd and blu-ray are the first hdtv formats. I'm convinced that the reason there even was a format race in the first place is because these companies realize hi-def is the future of television. I mean, how soon are we going to see televisions produced in a large quantity that have a resolution greater than 1080p? We're finally beyond NTSC and PAL which means we can watch movies at 24 frames per second just as they are in the theater. From what I've read here and there, people used to watch 16mm prints of movies on a projector at home. It would seem we finally have in these new formats the television equivalent of that.
Post
#306789
Topic
Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles Thread
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/306789/action/topic#306789
Time
If they really are throwing T3 out the window I find that hilarious considering this is being executive produced by the very same people. I wonder if they did what they did because they wanted it to take place today in 2007 and in order to do that in the timeline established by the last film, 2007 would have to be in the post-apocalyptic Humans vs. Skynet world. You all do raise a good point though, it simply hasn't acknowledged T3 "so far," and considering how crazy of a premise those first two episodes had I wouldn't be surprised if they end up back in 1997 by the end of the series and T3 ends up staying in continuity after all. In any event, it's always interesting to see a franchise make the leap from big screen to small screen, especially when there's another big screen installment just around the corner ....
Post
#306315
Topic
Blu-ray Disc or HD-DVD?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/306315/action/topic#306315
Time
This is actually something I've been wondering about for a while.

Will it actually be absolutely impossible for the early adopters of non-ps3 profile 1.0 blu-ray players to update to the newer profiles? Even players without ethernet can still accept updates via cd, so what exactly would stop the older players from being 100% compatible with everything future discs will have to offer (besides internet features, of course)?
Post
#305960
Topic
Blu-ray Disc or HD-DVD?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/305960/action/topic#305960
Time
hmmmm, you know, the whole "whether or not you'll even notice the difference" question is an interesting one. Honestly, once I found out how NTSC actually works I suddenly had a huge reason to stop buying standard dvd's now that there are hi-def formats. Of course, this didn't stop me from picking up stuff I hadn't seen before just as long as it was a pretty low bargain bin price, by which I mean it costs just about as much to buy it brand new as it would to rent it. There was even a crazy sale back in September where I picked up The Doors (remastered!), Bound, Pi and Glengarry Glen Ross for just 3 dollars a pop. Even with just one hi-def format sticking around, it's good for standard dvd prices.

The resolution isn't really what does it for me, and after all you really do need a 1080p tv to see the difference. How do I know? Well, I'll get to that in a moment.

I remember watching the blu-ray of Pirates 2 and the only difference it made was that I could sit a ways from the 50" 1080i DLP and not have to squint. Then, over thanksgiving, I saw some blu-ray movies on a huge 1080p projector and let me just say it was akin to 2k digital cinema as far as I'm concerned.

Which brings me back to the question of how good standard dvd's look. I don't even have an hdtv, but the computer has pretty good specs and the 1024x768 monitor is hooked up via DVI which means not only can it display anamorphic discs at their full resolution, it can make them look pretty damn good too. I read a thread recently (not on this website) where a guy was saying he can't stand watching standard dvd's now that he has an hdtv. Unless this guy is some kind of super, uber videophile, I'm really questioning what his hardware specs are. Standard dvd's look amazing on my friend's 60" sony lcd (being played on a bose dvd player with 5.1 in case you were wondering). Heck, even on my other friend's zenith lcd over coaxial they look frickin' amazing!

To be totally honest, I miss not knowing about how 24p sources have to be slowed down to 23.976 in order to be telecined to ntsc. A large part of me has simply gotten used to everything that's available on dvd and how good it can look and sound, not to mention the fact that while not every single person has a dvd player, a whole helluva lot less have hi-def optical disc players. Even if the new formats produce an experience that's closer to watching an actual print, when I look at the screencaps on dvdbeaver it just seems "off" to me, like I'm looking at a really hi rez digital file. I dunno, maybe it's just not a good representation of how the blu-ray/hddvd actually looks under optimal conditions and/or they're just not capturing still frames in the best possible way. Their reviews for the new blade runner set kinda illustrates what I'm trying to say. The screencaps from the hi-def have really blown out contrast while the ones from the standard dvd pretty much perfectly resemble what I remember seeing in the theater. Again, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to hardware limitations.
Post
#305595
Topic
Blu-ray Disc or HD-DVD?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/305595/action/topic#305595
Time
HDDVD showed up first and it's been losing ever since the beginning of 2007, finished spec or not. The "it's cheaper" argument would be great if I actually saw a significantly lower price on them than blu-rays. In fact, I'm pretty sure they're always the same price as BD in the newspaper ads .... unless of course they're hddvd/dvd combo discs in which case they're even more! Hey, the good thing about the Warner announcement is that even if dreamamount and uni decide to remain hddvd exclusive for years to come (unlikely), at least we won't have to make up our minds about which format to get Warner's stuff on.
Post
#304011
Topic
Blu-ray Disc or HD-DVD?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/304011/action/topic#304011
Time
Well, at least it will be a company that has actually had a stake in hollywood as opposed to microsoft. I mean seriously, which is the lesser of two evils there?

The only real advantage I see hddvd having over blu-ray is that you can get combo discs, but I see a number of drawbacks to that. One is that quality control for these combo discs is apparently horrible, DVD-18 is unreliable enough. Another is that it seems to say to me that the hddvd camp doesn't expect its own format to take off. Why else would they bother to include the analog-compatible transfer?

It seems like Blade Runner is going to be WB's acid test for which format is doing better at the moment, because there is absolutely no difference at all between the hddvd and blu-ray releases as far as I know.