logo Sign In

AotC green tint — Page 2

Author
Time
 (Edited)

SwissArmyTin said:
The only reason you found the OP “ironic” is because they held a view contrary to yours, and you picked on them.

Your imaginary conversation skills are on display once again. I quoted Fang Zei and laughed at his comment. I didn’t even address the OP before you started in. In fact, I presume you are supposedly on this site out of an interest in preserving the original trilogy, and yet the moment a prequel troll made an aggressive comment towards me, you saw that as your cue to jump into another thread and try and take another shot at a person you dislike.

This is something that 4 or 5 of you do on a regular basis to several posters.

Author
Time

Alderaan said:

SwissArmyTin said:
The only reason you found the OP “ironic” is because they held a view contrary to yours, and you picked on them.

Your imaginary conversation skills are on display once again. I quoted Fang Zei and laughed at his comment. I didn’t even address the OP before you started in. In fact, I presume you are supposedly on this site out of an interest in preserving the original trilogy, and yet the moment a prequel troll made an aggressive comment towards me, you saw that as your cue to jump into another thread and try and take another shot at a person you dislike.

This is something that 4 or 5 of you do on a regular basis to several posters.

If there were a way to preserve an original 2002 dcp of AotC then obviously I’d be in favor of that, but there isn’t.

A 35mm print would be the best available reference for how this movie looked theatrically, hence my comment.

Author
Time

Alderaan said:

SwissArmyTin said:
The only reason you found the OP “ironic” is because they held a view contrary to yours, and you picked on them.

Your imaginary conversation skills are on display once again. I quoted Fang Zei and laughed at his comment. I didn’t even address the OP before you started in. In fact, I presume you are supposedly on this site out of an interest in preserving the original trilogy, and yet the moment a prequel troll made an aggressive comment towards me, you saw that as your cue to jump into another thread and try and take another shot at a person you dislike.

This is something that 4 or 5 of you do on a regular basis to several posters.

I’m not a prequel troll. You’re letting bias cloud your judgment.

Author
Time

Fang Zei said:

Alderaan said:

SwissArmyTin said:
The only reason you found the OP “ironic” is because they held a view contrary to yours, and you picked on them.

Your imaginary conversation skills are on display once again. I quoted Fang Zei and laughed at his comment. I didn’t even address the OP before you started in. In fact, I presume you are supposedly on this site out of an interest in preserving the original trilogy, and yet the moment a prequel troll made an aggressive comment towards me, you saw that as your cue to jump into another thread and try and take another shot at a person you dislike.

This is something that 4 or 5 of you do on a regular basis to several posters.

If there were a way to preserve an original 2002 dcp of AotC then obviously I’d be in favor of that, but there isn’t.

A 35mm print would be the best available reference for how this movie looked theatrically, hence my comment.

To which he should’ve replied “It’s ironic that a 35mm print would be the best shot at preserving a digitally-shot movie”

Alderaan said:

SwissArmyTin said:
The only reason you found the OP “ironic” is because they held a view contrary to yours, and you picked on them.

Your imaginary conversation skills are on display once again. I quoted Fang Zei and laughed at his comment. I didn’t even address the OP before you started in. In fact, I presume you are supposedly on this site out of an interest in preserving the original trilogy, and yet the moment a prequel troll made an aggressive comment towards me, you saw that as your cue to jump into another thread and try and take another shot at a person you dislike.

I find it quite amusing that the more you talk, the more you reveal your true motivations for stirring up the pot. You think the prequels are some of the worst films ever made and that the op is just a ‘prequel troll’, simply because he enjoys the films, so he’s lower than you because that’s wrong.

This is something that 4 or 5 of you do on a regular basis to several posters.

It’d be easier not to if you weren’t more repetitive and predictable than the penis pill spambots. I could constantly spam my dislike for Rogue One and screw with those who like it in the Rogue One general thread or in other threads where a post casually mentions the movie, but guess what? I don’t. I avoid it, because it’s in human nature to avoid things you don’t like. Since you dislike the prequels so much, why are you here?

What, a man builds a giant mound of dirt in his house and you aren’t entertained?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

SwissArmyTin said:
I find it quite amusing that the more you talk, the more you reveal your true motivations for stirring up the pot. You think the prequels are some of the worst films ever made and that the op is just a ‘prequel troll’, simply because he enjoys the films, so he’s lower than you because that’s wrong.

He’s a prequel troll because look at his user name. Look at his brief posting history. When someone signs up on a forum called Original Trilogy and their posts are all about prequels, and nothing to do with the original trilogy or preserving the original trilogy, I think it’s fair to believe they are posting in bad faith.

Even then, I simply laughed at Fang’s ironic comment. And when the troll got hostile, you saw his comment as a cue. Like a dog hearing the food pour into its bowl, it didn’t matter who was posting or what the topic was about, an attack on a user you don’t like was your cue to bandwagon and further attack a user you don’t like. A few of you do it over and over again, jumping from thread to thread.

If you don’t like someone criticizing a movie you like, then ignore it. Stop crying like a baby and grow some thicker skin.

Most especially, stop making up paranoid comments and insinuations out of thin air.

Author
Time

You guys are looking in Alderaan places for a troll.

When we can’t lol freely, do we truly have freedom?

The correct response would’ve been “I’m confused, why are we loling?”, providing an adequate opportunity for response.

“Don’t shitpost” is a condemning response, providing little opportunity to proceed with the conversation civilly.

I’m all for an AotC 35mm scan, though was under the impression that the film prints were visually sabotaged to contrast with the DCP showings. With that in mind, I believe the PAL anamorphic DVD probably offers the highest quality near-theatrical source (AotC hdtv streams look good but suffer from pixellation frequently). The pal P&S probably offers the highest quality available for the visible picture.

Preferred Saga:
1/2: Hal9000
3: L8wrtr
4/5: Adywan
6-9: Hal9000

Author
Time

Alderaan said:

SwissArmyTin said:
I find it quite amusing that the more you talk, the more you reveal your true motivations for stirring up the pot. You think the prequels are some of the worst films ever made and that the op is just a ‘prequel troll’, simply because he enjoys the films, so he’s lower than you because that’s wrong.

He’s a prequel troll because look at his user name. Look at his brief posting history. When someone signs up on a forum called Original Trilogy and their posts are all about prequels, and nothing to do with the original trilogy or preserving the original trilogy, I think it’s fair to believe they are posting in bad faith.

Even then, I simply laughed at Fang’s ironic comment. And when the troll got hostile, you saw his comment as a cue. Like a dog hearing the food pour into its bowl, it didn’t matter who was posting or what the topic was about, an attack on a user you don’t like was your cue to bandwagon and further attack a user you don’t like. A few of you do it over and over again, jumping from thread to thread.

If you don’t like someone criticizing a movie you like, then ignore it. Stop crying like a baby and grow some thicker skin.

Most especially, stop making up paranoid comments and insinuations out of thin air.

I despise the prequels as much as the next guy, but they have their place in history. This place is a Star Wars fansite first and foremost, founded to bring about the restoration/preservation of the original unaltered trilogy, but has since evolved far past that. Many other restorations and preservations of other films, Star Wars or not, have stemmed out of these forums. Heck, I check this place more than sites like Fanres. If you deny the Prequels the right to have any preservation attempt, then you must deny all the other films that are preserved here.

On the Op, you judge him by his name and by a few of his posts. They’re prequel related. What’s so inherently wrong with that? A Star Wars fan on a Star Wars fan site that likes the prequel trilogy. Blasphemy, is it not? No, it’s just someone with a different opinion than yours who can find enjoyment out of something you cannot, yet you decide to condemn them outright on premise alone. If that isn’t childish ignorance in it’s purest form, then I don’t know what is.

What, a man builds a giant mound of dirt in his house and you aren’t entertained?

Author
Time

Plus, yes, the prequels are not good in their theatrical form. They are poorly made films there’s no doubt about that. But saying they are some of the worst films ever made is a huge exaggeration, as bad as they are there is MUCH worse.

Author
Time

Alderaan said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

Take a gander at his post history and you’ll find your answer.

Likewise.

If you think someone with the OP’s username, who signed up on an original trilogy forum and has only made pro-prequel posts, deserves much better, then feel free to offer him your defense.

I’ll take someone who likes the prequels and has a username I don’t get over your shitposting any day.

Author
Time

Alderaan said:

When someone signs up on a forum called Original Trilogy and their posts are all about prequels, and nothing to do with the original trilogy or preserving the original trilogy, I think it’s fair to believe they are posting in bad faith.

I hate the prequels but I hate posts like this much more.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Possessed said:

Plus, yes, the prequels are not good in their theatrical form. They are poorly made films there’s no doubt about that. But saying they are some of the worst films ever made is a huge exaggeration, as bad as they are there is MUCH worse.

I disagree that they are any more poorly made than ANH or ROTJ. I think ESB is more polished, but I don’t necessarily think that leads to greater enjoyment automatically.

Author
Time

PTOTST in that order said:

Possessed said:

Plus, yes, the prequels are not good in their theatrical form. They are poorly made films there’s no doubt about that. But saying they are some of the worst films ever made is a huge exaggeration, as bad as they are there is MUCH worse.

I disagree that they are any more poorly made than ANH or ROTJ.

Oh boy.

Author
Time

TV’s Frink said:

PTOTST in that order said:

Possessed said:

Plus, yes, the prequels are not good in their theatrical form. They are poorly made films there’s no doubt about that. But saying they are some of the worst films ever made is a huge exaggeration, as bad as they are there is MUCH worse.

I disagree that they are any more poorly made than ANH or ROTJ.

Oh boy.

x2

What, a man builds a giant mound of dirt in his house and you aren’t entertained?

Author
Time

PTOTST in that order said:

TV’s Frink said:

PTOTST in that order said:

Possessed said:

Plus, yes, the prequels are not good in their theatrical form. They are poorly made films there’s no doubt about that. But saying they are some of the worst films ever made is a huge exaggeration, as bad as they are there is MUCH worse.

I disagree that they are any more poorly made than ANH or ROTJ.

Oh boy.

Yes?

It’s not fair to assume someone is posting in bad faith just because they enjoy the prequels, but this is a bridge too far.

Author
Time

The question now is can the bridge be retracted, or have the controls been blasted?

Author
Time

AOTC film prints were of notoriously poor quality. As it was also originally digitally projected, using a 35mm print as the definitive reference to how it should look is misguided. It was meant to be digitally projected.

However, the 35mm film prints had a different cut of the film, so if one ever becomes available, it would be great to see that alternate cut.

Author
Time

Handman said:

AOTC film prints were of notoriously poor quality. As it was also originally digitally projected, using a 35mm print as the definitive reference to how it should look is misguided. It was meant to be digitally projected.

Actually in 2002 the majorities of the cinemas / movie theatres on the planet have projected the movie from 35mm prints. So…

However, the 35mm film prints had a different cut of the film, so if one ever becomes available, it would be great to see that alternate cut.

This “alternate” cut is the “original theatrical cut” for most of the world

Author
Time

To be fair, the idea of wanting a 35mm print of the movie that led the revolution to help kill film in order to properly preserve an end-to-end-digital presentation is kind of funny.

Star Wars Revisited Wordpress

Star Wars Visual Comparisons WordPress

Author
Time

pittrek said:

Handman said:

AOTC film prints were of notoriously poor quality. As it was also originally digitally projected, using a 35mm print as the definitive reference to how it should look is misguided. It was meant to be digitally projected.

Actually in 2002 the majorities of the cinemas / movie theatres on the planet have projected the movie from 35mm prints. So…

So… what? It was simultaneously digitally projected, and that was marketed as the preferred version. A 35mm film print would not give a definitive answer as to how that film was meant to be seen.

However, the 35mm film prints had a different cut of the film, so if one ever becomes available, it would be great to see that alternate cut.

This “alternate” cut is the “original theatrical cut” for most of the world

Fair enough, as I said, the different cut is the primary reason a 35mm print should be preserved here.

Author
Time

To make a flawed analogy:

35mm prints = eastman prints
DCI version = technicolor IB
IMAX prints = 70mm

Author
Time

PTOTST in that order said:

Is there concrete info on why the Attack of The Clones BD got the Fellowship of The Ring treatment?

Are you sure they just didn’t forget to replace the green screens with cgi for the bluray version ?