I was just now watching the duel, and when Darth Maul ignites his lightsaber, the audio for the blade on the left comes out of the right channel and the for the blade on the right the left channel. It seems that you may have your channels backwards.
ranger613 said:
Well I don't think he's a good director, he is clearly more preoccupied with the spectacle and grandiosity of action set pieces and special effects. This is clear in the PT, where 95% of dialogue and exposition is between characters sitting at tables or couches with a three camera over the shoulder setup. The action scenes are interesting visually but fail because we don't care about the people they're happening to, like he wanted to skip past the "boring" taking scenes to get to the visual effects bits. I don't think he knows what a good story is and how to tell it, he should give that job to writers and directors who know what they're doing. If he wants to keep running ILM, hey, that's cool.
Remember, he also made THX-1138 and American Graffiti. THX-1138 had a limited budget and few effects, and there really weren't any in American Grafitti to speak of. He also did the original Star Wars, which is filmed much better than the PT.
Handman said:
Wazzles said:
SilverWook said:
Bingowings said:
While that may be true I defy anyone to watch TPM and not see those ethnic stereotypes.
I think George in his eagerness to evoke all things Buster Crabbe thought he could use them if he transfered them away from the original human model and onto an alien.
Jabba was the sort of fat sultan that Frank Thring used to play, Yoda was the oriental sage and martial arts trainer, the Ewoks were any generic African tribe from a Tarzan movie so George thought he could give us Stepin Fetchit, some shifty trade grabbing Japs and a Semitic child slaver in much the same way.
The world had moved on (even from the 1980s). Sir Alec got into trouble for browning up in A Passage to India where nobody really cared in Lawrence of Arabia. Episodes of Doctor Who are routinely branded racist for using yellow face (ignoring the limited number of oriental actors available to the BBC at the time).
So come 1999 one would hope George would have realised there are some things you just cant get away with anymore. It doesn't stop the depiction of women and ethnic Sikhs in Star Trek Into Darkness as being equally behind the times.
Cumberbatch Khan was supposed to be Sikh?
The character of Khan is, and due to all the fun timeline things, he is still technically the same Khan from Wrath of Khan, who was Sikh.
*puts on glasses/cue nerd voice*
Well, actually, the same Khan from "Space Seed", since the Khan from "Wrath of Khan" had it out for Kirk, while STID Khan didn't even know who he was.
Well, EVERYONE knows that, duh! :D I just figured it would be easier to say Wrath of Khan, even though they only mention his ethnicity in Space Seed and not the movie.
Handman said:
Getting back on track, here are some images from the P&S VHS. Let me know if there are any specific parts you want to see. They are presented in their native resolution. The first image is... ironic?
http://s27.postimg.org/jrvnt3j2r/tpmvhs.png
If you guys know of any way to get a better capture of the video, let me know.
Those actually look pretty good, all things considered. Can you post some shots of the crawl or the duel?
SilverWook said:
Bingowings said:
While that may be true I defy anyone to watch TPM and not see those ethnic stereotypes.
I think George in his eagerness to evoke all things Buster Crabbe thought he could use them if he transfered them away from the original human model and onto an alien.
Jabba was the sort of fat sultan that Frank Thring used to play, Yoda was the oriental sage and martial arts trainer, the Ewoks were any generic African tribe from a Tarzan movie so George thought he could give us Stepin Fetchit, some shifty trade grabbing Japs and a Semitic child slaver in much the same way.
The world had moved on (even from the 1980s). Sir Alec got into trouble for browning up in A Passage to India where nobody really cared in Lawrence of Arabia. Episodes of Doctor Who are routinely branded racist for using yellow face (ignoring the limited number of oriental actors available to the BBC at the time).
So come 1999 one would hope George would have realised there are some things you just cant get away with anymore. It doesn't stop the depiction of women and ethnic Sikhs in Star Trek Into Darkness as being equally behind the times.
Cumberbatch Khan was supposed to be Sikh?
The character of Khan is, and due to all the fun timeline things, he is still technically the same Khan from Wrath of Khan, who was Sikh.
NoobDude said:
If that is a reference to Vader's eyebrows (which appear to be blurry for some reason?)
Not specifically to Despecialized, but yes.
CatBus said:
You'll find on this forum that one eyebrow hair or speck of dirt out of place draws howls of rage.
Well, it's closer to two full eyebrows than a couple of hairs :)
Handman said:
RU.08 said:
Handman, there's a cap of the Jap widescreen LD on the spleen if that interests you, it's the theatrical cut and has japaneese subtitles throughout (subtitles are in the borders not the picture). It's pretty close to DVD quality.
Thanks for letting me know. As ray_afraid pointed out, the Pan and Scan release differs a little from the original theatrical cut, and the Pan and Scan-iness offers a possible nostalgia factor. I'll still offer this to anyone who wants it, though there are other options, as you said.
If it's deinterlaced, I'd be interested in seeing it on the spleen.
I don't know if this has been brought up or not, but the theme at the end when it shows the title card seems exceptionally bass heavy. I mean, this thing rattled my sub. I checked it against the 2013 RotS DVD, and it's nowhere near this level. Is the Blu Ray mixed like this too?
darklordoftech said:
Wazzles said:
unamochilla2 said:
I thought the SE (at least the 2004 SE master) was stuck at 2K?
The version that exists is, but they made a 4K scan of the negatives a few years ago, which exist as the 97 SE. Some of the changes in the 2004 and 2011 are stuck at that resolution, though (new emperor scene, Hayden force ghost).
Hayden is stuck at 2k? Wooohooooooo!!!!!!
Yup! The footage there is a screen test for RotS- filmed on one of the 2k (or 1080p?) cameras used to film that movie.
unamochilla2 said:
I thought the SE (at least the 2004 SE master) was stuck at 2K?
The version that exists is, but they made a 4K scan of the negatives a few years ago, which exist as the 97 SE. Some of the changes in the 2004 and 2011 are stuck at that resolution, though (new emperor scene, Hayden force ghost).
CatBus said:
...and the only thing tipping the balance in favor of an OOT release is treating historically important films with respect, which Disney hasn't thus far indicated is much of a factor to them.
That's with their own properties, though, and even when they change them, it's mostly the same thing. There are no dramatic story differences of added effects, just digital color and animation. I see no reason for them to restore Star Wars in the same way, since it would be more expensive than just doing an IP scan and a conservative dash of DNR.
Fang Zei said:
The Star Trek movie blu-rays also had more commentary tracks and I abstained from buying those for the exact same reason (crap picture quality). Although at least those are the theatrical cuts of the movies.
I have the DVD versions, and they're not terrible. It's mostly just a lot of frozen grain due to DNR. I didn't really notice waxy faces, but again, DVD.
Easterhay said:
I'm not sure about playing games. What I am sure about is that you made a sweeping and wholly incorrect remark before and you've yet to address that; instead you're attempting to move on to discuss something else, something which isn't even apropos to this thread. And you have the gall to call people out on making "irrelevant" points.
Lucas won't be releasing any Star Wars films, OOT or otherwise, anyway, so that's another stupid question you've asked today.
What is the point of this argument attacking? We're here to discuss the topic of the thread, not how strong someone's logic or argument is.
I have a question for you: How's it going?
Easterhay said:
darklordoftech said:
1. That's a faded 35mm print.
2. I shouldn't have to buy a 4k projector to enjoy a movie.
No, but if you care about films then you should at least have a decent set-up. Or does the love of an untouched oringal trilogy round here extend to watching the film on the kind of home entertainment system that existed in 1977?
I agree with Danny Boy; the Blu-ray transfers are the best way to enjoy the films at the moment. I find the audio aspect of the six films to be more impressive than the visual aspect, though, although Revenge Of The Sith is probably just as impressive to look at as it is to listen to.
For a balanced and informed critique, you're best bet is to check out the review on blu-ray.com http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Star-Wars-The-Complete-Saga-Blu-ray/14903/#Review
I wouldn't consider that as a decent set up. A decent set up would be like a 40" 1080p TV with a sound bar and a Blu Ray player. A 4k projector, while awesome, is just kind of overkill for the average person.
Easterhay said:
I've managed to miss out on whatever negativity might have been heaped on The Hobbit films so I honestly don't know if it's been subjected to the same kind of internet-based bashing that the prequels had. As with the prequels, though, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that someone, somewhere, watched the films, made a negative remark, and it's been repeated ad nauseum ever since by a growing number of "haters" - ergo, the first person to use the phrase "mannequin skywalker" was a genius, the second person to say it was an idiot.
Has the criticism been about the amount of CGI in the films? Quelle surprise, if it has. Or is it about the additional scenes? I don't remember Saruman being in the book but then again I only read it once and it was a long, long time ago.
For me, it's both the amount of CGI and the added scenes, as well as the change in tone. The effects in the LotR trilogy was, in my mind, a perfect balance between practical and digital effects, which were also both done incredibly well. With the Hobbit, it has some great CGI, but way too much to be believable. That's fine though, since they don't really detract from the movie. The added scenes completely change the tone from fairy tale to GRAND EPIC FANTASY, which doesn't really work with the original story.
Haarspalter said:
Easterhay said:
Wake up and smell the proverbial; none of this is new or revolutionary - even Tolkien went back and revised The Hobbit to fit in with The Lord Of The Rings.
Tolkien tried to revise the Hobbit to fit in with LOTR. But he stopped because he was worried that the Hobbit would loose it's original intention: being a fairy tale for children. And so he scrapped his plans of a Revised Hobbit.
He revised the Riddles in the Dark chapter so that the nature of the ring was more like that of Lord of the Rings. This revision is even mentioned in Fellowship, where Gandalf tells Frodo that Bilbo initially lied about his encounter with Gollum (Riddles in the Dark in the first edition) and that what was in the revised edition was what really happened.
danny_boy said:
You would be a fool not to buy the blu ray.
people who say the blu ray looks shit around here probably have shit dispays.
Put it through a good system(I have a 4k Sony projector) and they look amazing:
35mm Above......Blu Ray through a Sony 4K projector below:
Also OLED tvs have just hit the market.
Star Wars...with it's black space backgrounds will benefit....OLED on the left...LCD on the right:
The complaints are mostly related to color timing, which is true. Clarity is still pretty good, though. Honestly, the only reason not to get them is the lack of the OOT.
CatBus said:
deepanddark20 said:
I thought the idea behind their project was that the GOUT, even for all its flaws, is the best version of the unaltered trilogy that has thus far been officially released, but some comments made in this discussion are making me think otherwise
AntcuFaalb already answered this pretty completely, but I wanted to add that most of the issues with the GOUT are fixable, and indeed are fixed in our preservations. The colors can be corrected so that they're even better than the JSC. You can replace the lossy '93 stereo GOUT audio with the lossless theatrical audio of your choice. The only thing you can't fix is the DVNR--and even though the DVNR is occasionally awful, for most people that's not enough to counteract the resolution advantage of the GOUT, or other advantages like the theatrical crawl, etc. Most people, including myself, do consider the GOUT to be the best official release, but the point is arguable, depending on your priorities. And frankly, the fact that it's arguable at all shows that there are very serious problems with the GOUT, because a half-decent DVD release would have been hands-down better across the board.
Some of the DNR trails can be eliminated, as Harmy shows in his DED, where you use the background as a custom matte and just have the object move over top that. I'm surprised no one has done this with just the GOUT already. Granted, that only fixes a few shots, but it would look over all better.
AntcuFaalb said:
fullmetal777 said:
My budget is infinite. Which Ld player is the best?
Cool! A Pioneer HLD-X0. I suggest purchasing one from Nicholas Santini since he brings each one to Pioneer Japan to be looked over and aligned to spec. He's been doing this for a looonnnnggggg time and does his packaging really, really well.
Prior to his passing, my buddy Ty purchased one from him for ~$5K. IIRC, Nicholas gives you back ~$1K if you ship the original box back to him.
http://home.q03.itscom.net/nsa/
If you're going to get an X0, then I suggest you pair it with a PMS Crystalio II and then you'll be set.
So I'm just curious, is it really worth it to pay $5k for a Laserdisc player? How much more quality could you possibly pull out of a Laserdisc? Isn't it still going to top out at lower quality than DVD? I mean, Laserdisc is awesome, but not THAT awesome.
Well, this gives me a platform to assert my theory, now that the theory in this thread proved false.
We will never get the OOT on its own- only with the 2011 editions. But we will eventually get the originals. I don't think putting a time frame on it is wise though, since the time frame here was obviously not met.
I'm in the same boat as you, though, I'm supposed to be doing homework too. :P
That sounds great! I really wish I could contribute, but I don't really have the money for that right now :(
Where did the Star Trek go?
The Hobbit films on their own and in conjunction with the LOTR films are perfectly decent films. It's just considering the massive deviations from the source material that's the problem- tonally and with the added scenes.
But I do see some similarities to the PT, but mostly in throwing in poorly done fan service- "OOH LOOK IT'S LEGOLAS AND HE THINKS GIMLI IS UGLY REMEMBER ALL THOSE SHENANIGANS FROM LORD OF THE RINGS?" is comparable to 3PO being built by Anakin.
