zombie84

I guess I have a few things to make up for. Sometimes life takes you in weird directions, but the best part is having a home to come back to.

OKAY...

My interpretation:

1) NO WAY this was for the 3D release. Absolutely not. Did TPM get a 4K scan and a restoration for the 3D? NO!

The Blu-ray MASTER (not the BD compressed version itself) was the "for all time" version of the SE. Yeah, it's 1080p. So are the prequels, the native footage is all 1080p, possibly less because there was widescreen matting and I'm not sure they used anamorphic lenses. The DI was a 2K upres. So Lucas is perfectly happy with the "For all time" definitive version being basically an HD master. It's not ideal, but it works; the 35mm prints you see in theaters typically have less than 1080p resolution because of duplication degradation, and that's why if you've ever seen a Blu-ray projected in the theater, it looks absolutely fine.

The 2004 and 2011 changes were never on film. You'd have to completely rebuild them, and redo all the colour timing as well. That's totally unrealistic when Lucas seems perfectly happy with a pro master of the "for all time" version of his films being at 1080p/2K. It would be very, very, very expensive to do a full-out 4K re-build (assuming they still have the digital elements, which I predict they do, but then who knows).

Finally, the 3D version of ANH was intended for...2015? I think. This restoration looks like it was a completed project, sometime in or around 2012. But Lucas said that they had been converting the film to 3D since 2010 or so, when they were making the BD scans. They did test footage, but Lucas said sometime in 2010 or so that a percentage of the film had already been converted and that they were working on it ahead of time because unlike the prequels they didn't have the digital elements to do truer depth layers. Maybe they decided to start over, but even still, Lucas seemed to consider the 2011 master the ultimate master. So you can't be restoring the film after you are already in the conversion process.

2) Disney cares about the fans and Star Wars. They do. That's why they are doing the sequels right. They are making a point of hiring top talent that includes good writers (LAWRENCE KASDAN for god's sake--how old school SW can you get) and good directors who are themselves fans. They are onboard with Abrams' "practical effects" "doing it like the OT" approach. Everyone involved with the film--Hamill, Mayhew, even visitors like Kevin Smith--have gushed about how it's like making the OT all over again. Disney is smart, look at their treatment of Marvel.

Further, when Bob Igor was buying Lucasfilm he made it clear that the films were no longer George's and they needed to do with them what they felt best. Lucas obviously agreed, as he made the deal. That's why they are sort of making a point of saying "hey fans, I know the prequels and SE kind of split the fan base, we are not going to do that, we are going to win the critics back."

3) George Lucas doesn't care. He has no involvement. He walked away. He sold the films. They are no longer his. There is no "never release the OOT" contract, that is an unfounded conspiracy theory. He released them in 2006, technically, and soften by 2011, saying he would like to restore them but didn't want to spend the money. He COULD HAVE--but he didn't give a shit. I'm sure by then he knew he was going to retire and sell the films the next year--as if he made that decision lickety-split--so was just like..."meh...I don't really care...money and time...this SE is my last statement on SW."

4) Which then brings us to....what the heck is this thing then? The lightsabers are weird. Not the 1997--I THINK? Has anyone verified this beyond a shadow of a doubt? Because what happens due to exposure variants is the the core and the glow look different from transfer to transfer, even when from the same source. Read most of this thread but maybe I missed something.

Well, I have some thoughts.

Not an SE hybrid. Never. They would never blatantly disrespect George Lucas by having a corporation deliberately change the very vocally "my artistic statement" George Lucas' films without him, while still delivering the dreaded SE (of a sort). That simply isn't done any more. The last time it happened was the 1980s, and they held a Congressional Senate pannel over it. That really doesn't happen anymore, especially not with Disney. This is just unrealistic. And it's not the remnant of a 4K SE build because that's unnecessary, doesn't make sense, and defies the history of 21st century Lucasfilm masters, especially with the expense involved. Which also means it's probably not for the aborted 3D.

So what is this then?

I can tell you guys something. I know some people in Lucasfilm and some people who worked at The Ranch (or is it the Presidio now? whatever). And every piece of film ever shot for all of the films has been scanned and digitized now. A guy I know walked into one of their editing bays and started talking to this staff editor--he had seen every second of every bit of film for all the films, all the takes, everything, because they have been slowly digitizing this stuff over the last few years. That's why we have all these outtakes on the BDs and stuff.

So 3 things:

1) Lucasfilm has been systematically doing this for years and finally got around to doing a proper restoration of Star Wars, but wanted to hold it for later--if the 2010 start date is real. Can someone clarify this for me? Maybe Lucas felt that--since even by 2010 I'm sure he knew he'd be retiring in the next couple years--they could start getting around to finally doing a proper 4K restoration of the original negative (even if he still felt like not releasing the OOT--which I think he had genuinely softened on but wanted to just BS us with reason for the next 18 months until he retired with his billions of dollars and handed the issue to someone else.)

2) It's a 2012 project, and as soon as that deal happened, in the flurry of meetings that must have consumed the first 2 months, the issue of "how do we get the original versions out there?" came up. Disney would want to do it. It wins back fans, builds hype for Episode VII (the sequel to the OT) and makes them millions of dollars. And so before the year was over they got back in contact with the successor to their old go-to Lowry, and made it happen. The deal was announced in October, but it was obviously in the works a few months prior, so if in November RMW is scanning the negs, it could be complete by Christmas, if they allotted the right amount of staff--and this is a pretty darn big project. What's bigger than Star Wars? Virtually nothing. This was a #1 priority project.

That still does leave the question of the lightsabers. It's not the negative, which is the 1997 SE--I THINK? Hmm. It's not the 2011 BD (of course, it's not on film in the first place), and no way were they doing a 2011 BD 4K rebuild, which also takes down the 3D releases with both of these points. Very perplexing.

3) It's a demo reel. They are showing these images to show off how awesome their stuff looks. Did they just add a bit of glamour glow to the O-neg sabers, which do look crude? Maaaybe. Is this actually NOT the 1997 SE shot? I mean, we only really have that release on Laserdisc right? Was that particular shot for sure not a recomp in 1997, because they DID do lightsaber recomps/cleanup (Luke on the Falcon), and even if you were to do a modern restoration, would it really not look like that? It does look like a modern "feathering" effect, but the rest of the footage (and even that lightsaber footage, sans the sabers) does not AT ALL look like the SE, it's very OOT-ish, very "actual vintage print of the OOT", and I'm wondering if maybe they just took a bit of creative license for the "look how great our work is" reel featuring a release that hasn't even come out yet and therefore no final product to compare it to.

Hey guys, so for those here a few years I guess I'm back. I had a good 2 year sabbatical from the internet world. Did I miss anything? I know I saw Harmy's stuff on major newspapers recently, so go Harmy. Fink, I'm looking at you for the gossip.

So did nobody here actually see Man of Steel this weekend?

I did, and I enjoyed it immensely. It's the perfect fusion of the artsy, angsty, character-driven Chris Nolan superhero approach and the visual, fast-paced, over-the-top, action overload Zack Synder approach. It shouldn't work as well as it does, but as a lifelong Superman fan this is a fantastic film. I have a feeling some people who aren't action fans may find the last hour a bit too much, but hell that's the way Superman stories are and the way this film should be. Good mix of old and new, in terms of the mythology. Russel Crowe was amazing in this film, as was Costner, and Henry Caville definitely gives Chris Reeves a run for his money. The films are so different that it's difficult to even compare them though. Overall, I'd say this is the Superman film I had always wanted but never thought possible, just because of the combination of talent and technology that luckily aligned here. I hope they bring back the same team for the inevitable sequel--Chris Nolan especially. I actually like Zack Synder's work, but it's the human side of this story that makes it resonate, and even I can't pretend that isn't due to Chris Nolan. Anyway, really good film, I'd like to see it on the big screen again.

I was impressed they really embraced the sci-fi elements of Superman, and those over the top action moments--Superman has always been like that, but sadly the only film to really play with those was Superman IV. Lex Luthor is nowhere to be found and thank god. I have a feeling he will be in the sequel, but it's nice to have the second out of 6 Superman films without the overplayed Lex Luthor. Hopefully in the sequel he can have command of giant robots and stuff like he does in the comics but they couldn't bring to life in past films.

Gaffer Tape said:

The Meyers films, especially The Undiscovered Country (which I love) were military thrillers.  This... again, I just can't understand how the comparison could possibly exist.  The Meyers films actually were about the ethics of militarism.  This movie is just an excuse to have a big, Texan-drawling, black hat admiral with a big ship to fire at the Enterprise.  There's no moral quandary.  Okay, well, that's not entirely true.  It's presented in a completely black and white way, given the tiniest bit of lip service when it's first introduced, and then completely done away with to make room for more space battles and then never, ever, EVER touched on again.

 

I will agree with you that Undiscovered Country was more complex--it's the most complex film in the whole franchise, and in my opinion the best--but is WOK not black and white? Is it not an excuse to have a superhuman mastermind blasting the shit out of the Enterprise? A chess game played with photon torpedoes and weapons of mass destruction?

Yes. It is.

But it does it SO WELL.

So does this film. And this is what I mean about the double standard. Plus, UNLIKE WOK, this film raises moral questions about whether it is right to kill the threat or have him face due process, whereas WOK was mainly about "how soon can we kill Khan?", and even though WOK raised the issues of "the needs of the many" at the very end, the whole concept of "what would you do to save your family, however you define that term", or "what do you do when your friend could die", or "at what point do you disobey orders" and "how far would you protect the system you serve, even when you think it is wrong", and what are the responsibilities of a captain--these are central issues in Into Darkness but either marginally touched upon in WOK or not touched upon at all. The most profound aspect of WOK was the realization of aging, that you really can't cheat death, and that's reflected in all the ways Into Darkness philosophizes about morality in the ways that WOK chose to do it in another manner. They are equally profound--if any of them are profound at all--but they go about it in slightly different ways. In WOK, they are expressed in slower, conversational scenes mainly, whereas in Into Darkness they are expressed through action scenes (or much tenser, edge of your seat conversational scenes), but in equal depth, and I think the fact that they are tied into action and violence gives the misleading impression that WOK is somehow more intellectual.

In the '09 film they were impersonating the original crew, because that was kind of the thrust of the film. Here, they really didn't have to worry about that, and I noticed a big difference, they really came into their own, probably partly because there was a real story, whereas the point of '09 was more Star Trek Junior High The Movie, and necessitated more of that self-conscious prequel mindset. It worked in that film, but I was glad to see that the characters and actors are more immersed in the roles and carving out the characters. McCoy was doing a bit of caricaturing in Into Darkness, but it's not very in your face, and the McCoy role is so bold it's hard not to without seeming inauthentic.

I don't understand for the life of me how anyone can call this film a bit shit. It's a bit brilliant. I understand that it's a fast-paced military thriller, but the two best Trek films by Meyers were like that too. Who cares if it's re-using WOK/Space Seed elements, it's a prequel/reboot so you have to expect it to touch upon the classics. Next film will probably involve the Klingon war and god knows every TOS movie ever made involved them in some capacity, but that's just the way ST is. I'm a lifelong Trek fan but I don't care what changes they make as long as it serves a good purpose. The script to this film was very good and touched upon all the classic Trek morality issues that the best episodes were about, while simultaneously giving us great characters with believable and interesting dialogue, lots of humour, an unpredictable storyline, plenty of surprises, while also crafting a tense thriller that used and even inverted the best parts of WOK while giving twist after twist and keeping you glued to the screen. And on top of it--it's just a fucking great action thriller, ST or not.

I was 100% spoiler free going in--didn't know about the Klingons or Nimoy, heard rumours of Khan but sort of brushed them off--and this film impressed me immensely every minute of screen time. Not saying it's perfect--the WOK throwbacks were a bit too heavy at the end for my tastes and I saw the Kirk resurrection a mile away--but honestly guys, I really don't understand how this did nothing for you. People hate on Dark Knight too, but what in the name of fuck is their problem, that is a great movie as well, it's stuff like this that feed the lame "can't please everyone" excuse that idiots use to defend the crappy movies they like (cough, Attack of the Clones, Transformers). Everything is relative, so if this movie is a disappointment it defies medical science how anyone here made it out of the Phantom Menace screenings still alive. To be fair, part of the problem is that ST is very diverse and different people like it for different reasons, but if you don't like Into Darkness it baffles me how you could profess to like WOK, Undiscovered Country, and episodes like Galileo Seven and Doomsday Machine, which are two of the best episodes and also are fast-paced military themed stories about morality issues--heck, so was the original Space Seed.

Finally saw this.

Definitely the best film I have seen this year, makes Iron Man 3 look like a TV movie. I don't understand any of the criticism Trek fans have levelled at this. For shame, you got a terrific, fantastic movie that is the best thing to happen to the series in almost 20 years and people are disappointed. Good grief. I loved the twists and turns, the cast is fantastic and the action scenes were suspenseful and expertly crafted. There are very, very few criticisms I can think of for this film. If you want to nitpick every film has plot holes and flaws--Star Wars, Dark Knight, Wrath of Khan--but when films deliver you don't really care about them or notice in the moment. This film was like that. I'll be seeing this again while I can and I'm pretty pumped for what Abrams will do with Star Wars.

But honestly guys, how THE FUCK can people here dislike the film? I can understand if you didn't think it was great. But seriously guys, just enjoy the film, barring Man of Steel this is one of the best science fiction blockbusters of the last decade.

Metal Hurlant, yes. In English it was sold as Heavy Metal. But don't bother with the psuedo-sequel movie Heavy Metal 2000, it's pretty crap.

Fun fact, George Lucas was a collector of Heavy Metal/Metal Hurlant, and it's "used universe" as illustrated by artist Moebius was an influence on Star Wars. Ridley Scott also followed the mag and influenced him on Alien, which is one reason why both films have that "lived in" style.

Thought I'd bump this in case anyone else would be interested in the discussion.

I really need to watch the Animated Series, I've only seen a few clips and maybe 2 episodes when I was 6 that I can't even remember now. Not a fan of the animation style, I think that was what kept me away for so long. I watched the old Spiderman series, which has a similar style, but for some reason the Star Trek style made the show seem boring to me, maybe because it's slower paced (as far as I can tell).

Hmm, guess I have more Trek on the cue than I thought.

Bloodsport is actually a very good movie, accounting for that 1980s factor. I had no idea Cyborg had a directors cut! I would love to see that. Supposedly the film started off as a sequel to Masters of the Universe, believe it or not. Even though a lot of people consider that to be a "bad" movie, I actually really like it, along with Superman 4. It's the film that is closest to the comic books at the time, so if you hate 1980s Superman comics I understand why you don't get it, but personally it feels dishonest when Superman fans hate on that film. It's one of the more accurate Superman story depictions, hate it if you want but then hate most issues of the whole damn thing too and stay home. The special effects suck, but so does most Superman comic artwork of that era.

Cyborg (1989)

Jean Claude Van Damme classic from Cannon, possibly THE 1980s "bad action movie" studio that brought us stuff like Crime Zone, Superman 4, Masters of the Universe and Delta Force. A great 1980s b-movie with a few cool special effects and some very interesting costume designs. Picture Mad Max meets Escape From New York. Obviously this is a bad movie, but it has that 80's Cannon charm. I found the VHS on sale for $1.25. The cover was actually printed out and taped over another VHS cover from the rental store, and I hadn't seen this since the 1990s. It was actually a bit more badass in my memory, but maybe because it was one of the first R-rated films I saw, back when Fox strangely used to air it on Saturday afternoon in the early 1990s. Nothing like a Cannon film though, these things defined 1980s sci-fi action films. If you are into that sort of thing.

Enterprise is a decent sci-fi series, it just doesn't really feel like a Star Trek series, and I think that's why it's always been the black sheep. Voyager, even if it was mediocre half the time, at least looked and played like you would expect it to. But if you like TNG and DS9, you won't necessarily like Enterprise, and I think that's the main reason it never has found an audience. It's not a bad show. But ST fans are not going to be kind to it, and non-ST fans aren't going to discover it either, so it only held that minority of ST fans who watched it, realized it wasn't really like any ST series, but liked it anyway. I can't say I'm one of them either. I wish I was, after I watch all the DS9 episodes I missed while TNG was still on, I'm out of luck as well.

Isn't he on contract for Avengers 2? Or is that wishful thinking on my part. Personally I think Downey needs a slightly better sendoff, it felt like they were thinking "well, he MIGHT be back to Iron Man 4, we HOPE he will, so we won't give the character the right amount of closure to keep the door open." Even if he isn't a main character like in Avengers, it would be appropriate I think if he came back for one last retirement tour.

Reflecting on the film a bit, I really do feel that the story was weak. The problem with the Iron Man sequels is that it does kind of feel like it's the same thing over again, even though each film (Avengers included) is fairly different. It still another Iron Man appearance. The films are based on character more than plot, and this one had a couple really great twists but I was never really engaged that much. Still a good film, worth seeing, but I still have this feeling that if I never saw it again or they never made a fourth entry I wouldn't really care. I would care if Downey was absent from Avengers 2 though. I feel like he works better in that ensemble than he does on his own, although I guess you could make that argument for all of the characters. Maybe it was a lack of tension that I was feeling. They clearly did try to bring Tony Stark down to rock bottom, I guess the problem is that everyone knows that he'll end the film driving away into the sunset in a sports car.

Luckily you can get a working original GB for under $30. You can replace the screen if you are tech savvy but you sort of have to know what you are doing.

Whenever I hear stories like these it just reminds me of the fact that eventually, all games will basically be played through emulation only. We're probably the last generation who will be able to acquire working models for an affordable price. 30 years in the future it will be like trying to buy a driveable Model T Ford with all original parts. Not going to happen unless you are a millionaire. It's one reason I started getting into electronics repairs as a hobby, eventually every single one of these machines will be broken and the only real way you will be able to salvage them is to fix it yourself. I wish I could go back in time and rescue my original NES and GB, I could probably fix them with what I know now.

greenpenguino said:

zombie84 said:

It's a shame Jeffrey Jones is in prison for a child porn conviction. He was a good character actor, too bad he turned out to be a creeper.

Wait, what?? What the hell?

*googles*

Oh my god. That's horrific. Every film I've seen him in is ruined now.

After looking up further details myself it looks like he never actually did go to prison after all, but he was arrested twice more for failing to update his sex offender registry, which sex offenders are apparently supposed to do annually.

I actually just re-watched Ravenous, one of my favourite films, and he's fantastic in this overlooked gem. It's too bad we'll never see him in a film again, but I guess that's the way it goes when you are a pedophile.

It's a shame Jeffrey Jones is in prison for a child porn conviction. He was a good character actor, too bad he turned out to be a creeper.

Went to the midnight premier and thought it was very good. The first is still better because of the character arc, but for a second sequel this was well done and entertaining. I really, really liked how they handled the Mandarin, it was a clever and somewhat daring choice and an excellent commentary piece. The film never hooked me like the first one did but that's a pretty high bar to match. I was glad to see that for the first time they actually gave Pepper Pots something to do instead of simply being Tony Stark's girlfriend. I was a bit sad there was no credits tease for the next film like the previous Marvel films--maybe they did that just as a lead-up to Avengers--but there a short and fun bit after the credits are over that is worth staying for.

I get the feeling by the end of the movie that they might be setting this up as the last film in the Robert Downey Jr Iron Man series, barring his appearance in Avengers 2. They could certainly do a fourth, but I think Downey might be getting a bit tired of the role having played it four times times as it is.

I saw it in 3D and IMAX, the 3D was well done and surprisingly subtle, I would recommend it for those who enjoy that format.

You fool, everyone knows the best ST game is TNG for Gameboy and NES.

Yeah I have a bunch of ADF's ST Log books. They were reprinted in 3-book collections in the 1990s, which initially bored me to tears as a ten year old but I have come to enjoy now that I'm older. I have so, so many ADF movie tie-in novels, but they are all so well done. His novelization of Alien is pretty incredible, and his adaptation of The Dig video game was one of the best novels I read as a kid.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. It has been the worst thing to happen to the middle east since Syria came along, and very few people who actually live there feel it has benefited their lives. In fact, almost no one does.

The worst part is that the United States might be dealt a retaliation from it in some way. Illegally invading a country without any planning or strategy, destroying the very fabric of society and law and order and directly being responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent civilians and the further feeding of the feeling of subjugation by western hegemonic powers--that mobilizes radicalization. The war in Iraq has created way more radicals than it removed, and the result of that is the newest generation of extremist militants, which Obama has been doing a fairly decent job at trying to undo. The United States helped cause 9/11 on itself for this very same cycle through it's interventions in Israel, which was why Bin Laden did what he did. If you listen to some of the speeches he has given, he isn't as "insane" as some people would have you believe, there is a twisted level of logic to his madness that mirrors the attitude a lot of American extremists have. If you go around trying to control the world, often in the pursuit of self interest on some level, and in the course of it don't really give a real shit about the people who live there, you are going to create a lot of enemies, for very legitimate and understandable reasons.

The US can't simply "go in and take out the bad guys" in Syria, because it's not that simple, just as it was in Iraq, there are multiple levels of social, political, and even religious, contexts to consider, plus the sheer logistics of such an operation, and the fact that things are more grey than they are black and white. A complex civil war/revolution isn't something you can solve with just a big stick, even though that is a useful tool to have, such bluntness is ineffectual against something as complex as this. I'm not really sure what the solution is, to be honest, but if you want to kick the hornets nest you are for sure going to get stung. Complex problems require complex solutions that are a lot less satisfying than just saying "well, why don't we just take them out?", which was something a simpleton moron like George Bush didn't understand and why he now has the blood of 110,000 civilian deaths on his hands.

You should move to Aleppo, if you can find it, you might have a more informed perspective.

I'm not ignoring it, I realize things hit home when they are on your own doorstep. My area was deeply affected by 9/11, as I live closer to NYC than many Americans and have many friends there and great love of that city; my city was also a known future target, and our airports and everything were shut down for a while. It was a big deal, and I still keep all the newspapers from that month, they are in a box in my basement.

But still. It was twelve fucking years ago. As C3PS said, young people now don't consider Al Queda something to fear, when they hear of shootings and bombings, that is not what they think of because they have never known a time when Al Queda struck the United States of America. Using September 11th to justify reactions is what I was criticizing. At what point does 9/11 stop being used as an excuse for certain mentalities? It's not 2003, I understand things hit home, but at a certain point you have to get over it and move on, raging against people because of 9/11 is not only illogical, it comes across as immature.

TheBoost said:

So I've been spending a lot of time working on the David Eddings Wiki, about the fantasy author. A lot of it has been collecting images of international covers of his books.

What is UP with the French? All the covers are weird, random images. Cat people, surreal Dali-esque landscapes, naked duded. Nothing to do with the very standard sword/sorcery novels they put these covers on.

Stupid frenchies.

If you think that is strange you should see the Russian and Polish versions of sci-fi/fantasy stuff. Ever seen their posters for Star Wars?

I bought my first Xbox360 game today.

Brutal Legend was selling for $9 at EB and I doubt I will be able to find it cheaper than that. It's a good one to have to just have, in case I want to play it again ten years down the road. I can technically play it on my brother's Xbox in the meantime. Would have got the PS3 version but the store I was at wasn't carrying it.