Sign In

Stalvern

User Group
Trusted Members
Join date
11-Jun-2017
Last activity
11-Sep-2017
Posts
11

Post History

Post
#1104692
Topic
Ranking the Star Wars films
Time

The only ones I really care about as movies:
The Empire Strikes Back
Star Wars

Decent accessories to those two:
(This space is tentatively reserved for The Last Jedi)
The Force Awakens
Return of the Jedi
(This space is even more tentatively reserved for IX)

Shit in descending order of solidity:
Revenge of the Sith
Attack of the Clones
The Phantom Menace

Not interested in Rogue One any more than I am in the rest of the EU/spinoffs.

Post
#1087322
Topic
Revised saber effects in GOUT?
Time

Oh, whoops. I just noticed that the background triangle to the left of Luke’s head in the first shot behaves exactly the same as the core of his lightsaber. I had thought that the entire image would look blown-out and gross if that kind of transformation had been applied to the whole thing, but I was clearly mistaken. Sorry for the waste of time!

Post
#1087228
Topic
Revised saber effects in GOUT?
Time

I feel like I should have run into discussion of this before, but I don’t recall seeing it. Apologies if asking about this in 2017 is just flogging a dead horse.

Here’s Luke being full of surprises in the Special Collection Laserdisc and Despecialized Blu-Ray:

And here’s the GOUT:

The core of Luke’s saber is much more thick and solid, and the glow around Vader’s has a sharp edge instead of a smooth fade.

Laserdisc and Blu-Ray:

Smeary GOUT:

Again, Luke’s saber is beefier, and Vader’s has a sharper glow (although with a tighter radius in this shot). You can also see that the glow on Luke’s saber has been tidied up for the Blu-Ray; it’s big and cloudy in the other two transfers, but in that one, it matches Vader’s.

What’s going on here? It doesn’t seem like whatever filtering the GOUT went through would have done this stuff on its own without seriously altering the rest of the picture.

Post
#1086854
Topic
Insert SE alterations into other movies
Time

2001: A Space Odyssey

This is Earth millions of years ago, right? Where are all the dinosaurs? A stegosaurus now lumbers past during one of the desert shots, then sits on the camera.

Re-rendered Monolith now stands at a slightly different angle.

Morphing effect allows audiences to finally understand that the flung bone metaphorically “is” the orbiting satellite.

Only one pencil floating through the aisle of the space plane? Try 50.

“Blue Danube” didn’t have the energy and soul that the station docking deserves. The scene is now set to “Heywood Rocks”.

A spotlight at the lunar excavation site is now partially obscured by an improbably placed boulder.

No longer is HAL 9000 a boring old computer eye on the wall. Thanks to the magic of CGI, his robot avatar now strolls about the corridors of Discovery One alongside Bowman and Poole. Slight adjustments had to be made to the existing footage in a shot where Bowman crossed the path of the HAL robot’s power cord, but the changes are smoothly integrated and hardly noticeable.

What kind of “explosive bolts” don’t burst into glowing rings when detonated?

In the original version of 2001, Bowman hardly came off as a hero when he cruelly disconnected HAL 9000’s higher functions. This time around, HAL lobotomizes him first, making the scene “fair”.

The dated “star gate” effect when Bowman enters the Monolith has been replaced with the crisp digital imagery of the Starfield screensaver from Windows 95.

At the end of the film, a senile, bed-ridden Bowman is gloriously reborn as the fetal “star child”. To reinforce the character’s epic arc, the original “star child” model has been replaced with the younger Bowman from earlier in the film, the character’s definitive incarnation.

This post has been edited.

Post
#1084637
Topic
What SE changes (if any) did people like?
Time

The recomposited miniature effects are an unambiguous improvement. A tasteful, subtle enhancement that gives the original visuals an entirely new level of realism. If Lucas had stopped there, very few people would give a crap about getting their hands on the theatrical versions.

SparkySywer said:
I really hate this change. Linguistics is a hobby of mine, and Aurebesh is one of the most poorly designed fictional writing systems ever, if not the most poorly designed one. It’s really just the English alphabet, with a few digraphs given their own letter, but the digraph letters are optional, anyway. I’d rather not think about it. I’d honestly prefer changing all the Aurebesh in the movies to the Latin Alphabet over changing that one piece of Latin to Aurebesh. I hate Aurebesh.

Aurebesh wasn’t created to be a plausible alphabet or even to be readable; it was created to look cool in the background of a movie in 1983. It’s more than adequate to the purposes of the original trilogy. If you’re watching those movies and all you can think of is “lore” and “worldbuilding” piled on years later, you might be watching them wrong.

This post has been edited.

To the top