Sign In

Mike O

User Group
Trusted Members
Join date
20-Jun-2006
Last activity
19-Nov-2017
Posts
2029

Post History

Post
#1129561
Topic
The Place to Go for Emotional Support
Time

So I’ve started seeing another therapist. I’ve also been having some limited luck with low dose Abilify. It’s still a slow process; there are still rough patches, I don’t think I’ll ever be back to normal or to where I want to be, but I’ve had some better days, which I would never have thought I’d have had not too long ago. I’m still tired of fighting. I still don’t feel like I’ll ever be back to where I was. But I’ve made some progress, there’s no denying that. I wish it was more, and one day at a time is a hard philosophy when you want to feel better, but I suppose every day should count for something.

Anyway, thanks again to everyone for their continued kindness and support. I guess sometimes things can get better, and it’s nice to think that. There’s still a long, long way to go, but it’s a start. It’s a start.

Post
#1129558
Topic
4K restoration on Star Wars
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

I don’t doubt that all unaltered footage has been preserved digitally, even if it hasn’t been reassembled. I bet every single frame of film shot for all of the movies has been scanned and filed in the Lucasfilm archive.

Hope springs eternal. Didn’t they hack up the OOT negatives to create the SEs?

NeverarGreat said:

Possessed said:

I don’t quite get how high definition is an alteration but okay. What, do they think the original films were shot on vhs or something? That’s a common misconception that bugs the crap out of me with ignorant people, that hi def is a new thing. Sure it’s new for HOME MEDIA but films have always been made at a high resolution, or whatever the analog term for that would be.

I have never seen this misconception except in the case of Star Wars. It’s baffling that it keeps being repeated.

Yeah, it’s really strange.

SilverWook said:

NeverarGreat said:

Possessed said:

I don’t quite get how high definition is an alteration but okay. What, do they think the original films were shot on vhs or something? That’s a common misconception that bugs the crap out of me with ignorant people, that hi def is a new thing. Sure it’s new for HOME MEDIA but films have always been made at a high resolution, or whatever the analog term for that would be.

I have never seen this misconception except in the case of Star Wars. It’s baffling that it keeps being repeated.

There is a belief that “old” movies aren’t HD or won’t look good in HD. It’s not just Star Wars. Not sure where it comes from. The people citing it specifically about the OT are just grasping for straws at this point.

Show them a restoration of an older film and you can quell that pretty quickly. Look at The Wizard of Oz or Gone With the Wind on Blu-ray. They look stunning.

yhwx said:

I think it’s because people hear high definition technology marketed as a new thing and see TV shows shot on tape as the old thing. I’m not sure if people really know how high-quality 35mm film can be.

Given that film will probably be dead by the end of next year, I doubt it.

SilverWook said:

Tv shows are still being shot on tape, only now in HD. Some 70’s sitcoms shot on tape look really bad now for some reason, especially Norman Lear productions. Maybe the video masters on those need restoration?

Would it even be possible to restore something shot on videotape?

On the flip side the first two seasons of Saturday Night Live look great for their age. I’ve only seen one video glitch so far, and I’m not sure it would even have been visible on a CRT. You can tell NBC didn’t allocate their best cameras to the show early on though. It’s a shame they didn’t remaster the film inserts because the telecine they had at the time was pretty awful. (I could get better results shooting a projector aimed at a blank wall.) Whether that footage still exists is anyone’s guess.

It’s a shame a lot of Universal’s 60’s/70’s tv output shot on 35mm hasn’t been remastered. Some of what I see airing on Cozi TV are from really old broadcast video masters.

Weren’t most 60s shows finished on film because broadcasting was still done via telecine, thus making remastering them more practical?

Fang Zei said:

The next time you hear someone say film isn’t hd, remind them that The Shield - a show shot in 16mm - is being remastered in 4k.

I have a Blu-ray of the original Texas Chain Saw Massacre from a 4K scan that’s quite breathtaking.

Slavicuss said:

SilverWook said:

Tv shows are still being shot on tape, only now in HD. Some 70’s sitcoms shot on tape look really bad now for some reason, especially Norman Lear productions. Maybe the video masters on those need restoration?

On the flip side the first two seasons of Saturday Night Live look great for their age. I’ve only seen one video glitch so far, and I’m not sure it would even have been visible on a CRT. You can tell NBC didn’t allocate their best cameras to the show early on though. It’s a shame they didn’t remaster the film inserts because the telecine they had at the time was pretty awful. (I could get better results shooting a projector aimed at a blank wall.) Whether that footage still exists is anyone’s guess.

It’s a shame a lot of Universal’s 60’s/70’s tv output shot on 35mm hasn’t been remastered. Some of what I see airing on Cozi TV are from really old broadcast video masters.

I’d like to see KOLCHAK: THE NIGHT STALKER remastered for a Blu-ray release.

Look at it this way: it’s more likely than Babylon 5 or the theatrical cut of THX 1138!

John Doom said:

Realistically, what’s keeping Disney from releasing the OOT? Costs? Low interest? But I’d argue that, since we know they’re already scanning every negative, even deleted scenes (see Rogue One), they may as well have scanned all of the original trilogy at this point, anyway. And even if they don’t find printing new discs worth the costs, they could release it as a digital download: granted, it’s not the same, but it’s a viable solution that would cost them virtually nothing.
So, I don’t think these are the problems. I think they just don’t want to release it at this point, probably because they want to focus on marketing the new movies.

Well, let’s remember that even if they do acquire Fox, there’s the level of interest they do or don’t have in restoring the OOT, not to mention what kind of profit it’d turn given the limited interest level from a small portion of the fanbase. And that’s also not forgetting that there are a dozen dozen mistakes they could make in the restoration. I hate being Debbie Downer, but as an OOT fan, I’ve gotten burned way too many times. The excitement of reading that originals would come out only to find out that they would just be the GOUT still stings after all these years.

joefavs said:

I think a lot of the 35mm preservations here tend to over-correct the grain thing, though. I don’t necessarily want a blu-ray to recreate the experience of watching a print in a theater; I think home video ought to be mastered for, y’know, the home, and on home systems excessive grain tends to look like noise. The more recent of the Goodfellas transfers strikes a good balance, I think. It’s got enough grain to be able to tell instantly that it was sourced from film without hitting you over the head with it.

I’m a little torn about this. I’m inclined to believe that once you’ve released a film, you should have the definitive cut right there, but what’s that? Especially back in the day, there are so many variables, especially with 35mm projection. But if I’m being honest, I’d probably say that I’d like the home video version of a film to recreate the original theatrical experience as closely as possible.

ChainsawAsh said:

Depends if you’re talking camera negative, interpositive, internegative, or release prints. Each one is a step down generationally and each one will have less detail to be captured than the last.

So in theory, camera negative is the way to go, as it has the most detail. But then you have no color timing information - you’ll have to go the interpositive or internegative from which the release prints were struck for that, and boom, you’ve lost two-three generations of detail. Or you could scan the o-neg and match the color grading to a reference print (interpositive or release print), but that still opens the door to revisionist color timing.

This is fascinating stuff. Where’d you learn all this, just over the years?

Swazzy said:

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1D62GU

Here’s a curveball. What does this spell for Fox’s holdover on a potential OT restoration?

Didn’t that fall through?

Jedi Master Skywalker said:

[John Doom said:]

“Realistically, what’s keeping Disney from releasing the OOT? Costs? Low interest? But I’d argue that, since we know they’re already scanning every negative, even deleted scenes (see Rogue One), they may as well have scanned all of the original trilogy at this point, anyway. And even if they don’t find printing new discs worth the costs, they could release it as a digital download: granted, it’s not the same, but it’s a viable solution that would cost them virtually nothing.
So, I don’t think these are the problems. I think they just don’t want to release it at this point, probably because they want to focus on marketing the new movies”.

good thinking dude I agree in all of that but if fox deal works out then the unaltered cut could be on the way very fucking quickly

God willing.

Post
#1128962
Topic
Disney to buy 20th (21st) Century Fox?
Time

Fang Zei said:

The fact that they were even talking about doing this says to me that the two parties will eventually hammer out some kind of deal over ANH.

WHEN?!

TV’s Frink said:

That’s an interesting and optimistic theory. 😉

As an OOT fan who’d borderline sell my soul to the devil for a proper release, I’ve just been burned so many times that I’ve given up getting any of my hopes up any more.

Post
#1128961
Topic
Farscape fans?
Time

Question? There’s the obscenely expensive and out of print Complete Series Blu-ray set, eg this one:

https://www.amazon.com/Farscape-Complete-15th-Anniversary-Blu-ray/dp/B00E688720/ref=sr_1_sc_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1510430337&sr=8-2-spell&keywords=farescape+the+complete+series+blu-ray

And this one, which looks like an Australian import (I know, that’s the country of origin for the show)

https://www.amazon.com/Farscape-Complete-Series-Blu-ray/dp/B01AHK50M0/ref=sr_1_sc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1510430337&sr=8-1-spell&keywords=farescape+the+complete+series+blu-ray

First, I heard that the original 35mm elements for the show were apparently lost, so is the HD upgrade (Well, I don’t own it at all yet, but you know what I mean) even worth it? Is there a difference in these two releases that’s significant enough to justify the spike in price? I’m region-free, so the disc regions are a non-issue.

Post
#1127605
Topic
Disney to buy 20th (21st) Century Fox?
Time

Wazzles said:

TheQuazz said:

I’m kind of shocked that some of you guys are more excited by the prospect of this allowing Star Wars/Superhero movie rights to be cleaned up rather than horrified at how this shows that it’s within Disney’s power to own more than half of the studios producing mainstream movies. Hopefully this won’t fall through.

It’s definitely a concern of mine, but the prospect of an official release of the OUT is clouding my judgement.

This. Finally getting the OOT would be worth damn near anything.

Post
#1122991
Topic
The Place to Go for Emotional Support
Time

Just want to vent a little. Sorry that this is long, feel free to skip it. It just feels better to get this out.

Sigh. Long day at work. Holiday is coming, and we were pretty packed. Came home to some minor obsessive thoughts and some compulsions to go with them. I know that I’m better as compared to how bad this used to be, but that doesn’t really take the sting out of when it happens. I’m starting to come to terms with the fact, and I’d give anything to be wrong, that I’m not going to ever be back to normal, and that this fucked up way my brain works is something I’m just going to have to live with for the rest of my life. Really doesn’t make me feel good, but I suppose at least I’ve considered the idea. My faith is, I guess, permanently broken. I don’t want to think about that, much less live with it, but I think I’m going to start to have to. I’m just tired of obsessing about this every time I hit a stimulus and oftentimes when I don’t. I’m just so fvcking tired of this shit. I had a normalcy once, but it just doesn’t feel like I can ever go back to it.

Anyway, I see my new therapist on Wednesday. I still feel very uncomfortable broaching any of the subjects that I’m dealing with, especially knowing his religious affiliation. Of course, any therapist worth his salt wouldn’t judge me and would be open-minded. I know that. But I keep telling myself that I have no interest in being anti-religion or anything like that, so why am I so goddamn obsessed with it?! I’m tired of being consumed about this. It’s just so hard to even think about approaching the subject. My last therapist tried to get me into ERP for the stimulus, and I should’ve fucking listened. God, I should’ve listened. Anyway, he’s looking into Mindfulness. I know I should listen this time, and at least I’m going to try, or so I keep telling myself. I’m just worried that I’m using OCD and everything to mask the fact that I’ve lost my faith. But that is-or should be-wholly different from wanting to fight against things or God forbid, lock horns with my parents, which I categorically don’t want to do. Whenever my dad goes on one of his far-right rants, I’m always just able to write it off and live with the fact that he’ll never change. I just wish I knew why the fuck I can’t do the same fucking thing with Matt Dillahunty. It’d solve like 90% of these problems, and maybe I could start focusing on real-life issues and trying to salvage what years I still have while I still can.

Sorry. Just wanted to vent a little.

Post
#1120561
Topic
All Things Star Trek
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

darth_ender said:

Warbler said:

Tobar said:

The established canon for the Kelvin “timeline” is that it is in fact actually an entirely different alternate reality:

That is not the way it appears in Star Trek 2009.

That is exactly how it appeared and was intended to appear.

That is not the meaning I got out of Star Trek 2009.

I don’t understand how you could possibly take that meaning from it.

Don’t they say that in the film, literally calling it an “alternate reality?”

Post
#1120557
Topic
All Things Star Trek
Time

Warbler said:

Official canon must abide by the events in the various movies and tv series’, this includes Star Trek 2009.

Star Trek 2009 has some rather significant events which take place in the Prime Universe though, even if they’re largely references rather than shown; the destruction of Romulus and the disappearance of Spock being key.

Post
#1120554
Topic
All Things Star Trek
Time

DominicCobb said:

How is all manners of blood and violence “family friendly” but saying something is “fucking awesome” not?

Trek could get violent, but I don’t know if I’d say it ever got gratuitously violent. Even an episode with brutal torture scenes like “Chain of Command” was in the service of some kind of sociopolitical commentary or something. It was rare to see sex or violence on it which wasn’t narratively justified or was incredibly shocking just for the sake of shock value. I can’t think of any examples offhand.

Post
#1114770
Topic
“Vader was framed.”
Time

ZigZig said:

The T-shirt appeared at leat 13 years ago in “A Cinderella Story” (2004) : http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_FOj0dDyraGg/TCb3iFLbuNI/AAAAAAAAAaI/4ye22RgNiZc/s1600/ACinderellaStory_VaderFramed.jpg

I don’t know the genesis of this gag, but it is pretty old.

Edit: Google shows that some guy used this gag as signature in a forum in 2002: https://forum.dvdtalk.com/2938981-post32.html

So this gag is at least 15 years old…

Huh. I used to frequent that forum.

Post
#1114767
Topic
All Things Star Trek
Time

His writing has actually not been too bad. It’s weird, it’s like he wanted to write a straight-up Star Trek series, Fox asked for a standard McFarlane show with dick and weed jokes, and he put them into his first script and Fox approved it. It’s bizarre.

Post
#1114492
Topic
All Things Star Trek
Time

ElectricTriangle said:

Mike O said:
I’ve always kind of wondered what the rationale of hiring him was, especially given that Frakes was chosen instead of some bigger-name directors, apparently on the last two.

I think he was brought in because Berman wanted to “liven things up” with an action director, and Baird was who he came up with.
I imagine this was probably in response to Insurrection, which feels cheaper and more like TV than the the first two films.
Does anyone know why that is? I know they didn’t go with ILM, so that’s why the effects work isn’t great, but Insurrection has the same director, cinematographer and a larger budget than First Contact but looks worse.

Baird still seems like an odd choice, even given the action filmmakers at the time, a guy like John McTiernan probably would’ve been a better bet, though perhaps Baird simply came cheapest? As regards Insurrection, I have always kind of wondered that too. I don’t think it’s as terrible as many people say, but it’s essentially an extended episodes, and doesn’t look nearly as good as the cheaper First Contact, as you point out.

As far as the FX work, instead of ILM, didn’t they go with Digital Domain? Or was that on Nemesis? Because if they’re not exactly in the same league as ILM, they’re still a pretty top-tier company, aren’t they?

DuracellEnergizer said:

ElectricTriangle said:

Mike O said:
I’ve always kind of wondered what the rationale of hiring him was, especially given that Frakes was chosen instead of some bigger-name directors, apparently on the last two.

I think he was brought in because Berman wanted to “liven things up” with an action director, and Baird was who he came up with.
I imagine this was probably in response to Insurrection, which feels cheaper and more like TV than the the first two films.
Does anyone know why that is? I know they didn’t go with ILM, so that’s why the effects work isn’t great, but Insurrection has the same director, cinematographer and a larger budget than First Contact but looks worse.

Going the “human aliens” route probably didn’t help.

I don’t know, are they more complex than the Borg? The Borg looked like a makeup FX nightmare.

suspiciouscoffee said:

SilverWook said:

Mike O said:

SilverWook said:

Meyer and producer Harve Bennett sat down and watched the entire series though. That’s how they got the idea to revisit Khan.

Bennett did, did Meyer? I didn’t know that.

Maybe I’m not remembering it correctly, but Meyer made two well regarded Trek films and contributed to the screenplay of IV, so I think he versed himself in it more than Baird ever did.

I seem to remember Meyer mentioning watching the series in the II director’s cut commentary track, but I could be wrong.

You could certainly be right, it’s been a while since I watched it that way.

ElectricTriangle said:

DuracellEnergizer said:
Going the “human aliens” route probably didn’t help.

I’m not even talking about costuming, (although some of that is weird), but like:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdNbVxMNFvk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vm8sOhr-0lA
Ignoring the ship effects, these are both scenes of people bouncing around in ships. First Contact’s is shot, lit, and blocked much more dynamically. Insurrection has some nice stuff in it, but on the whole it has a much more conservative production design.
Even this scene, from the climax, lacks the gravitas of the First Contact stuff.
I don’t know anything about Hollywood budgets, did the ensemble cast’s salaries just eat into the budget more? (I assume they increase per film).

Particularly odd given that Frakes was actually LESS experienced as a feature-film director when he made First Contact.

SilverWook said:

I imagine the extensive location shoot added a bit more to the budget.

That’s an interesting point.

To the top