Info: Some thoughts on this community. — Page 2

Author: boris
Time: 27-Jul-2006 10:57 PM
Post link

Originally posted by: Karyudo
I guess I have to quote you again:

Most of [the cleanup needed] is due to anomalies created by Laserdisc and not the master.
Actually, the film was cleaned up frame-for frame, and is far more extensive then the amount of clean-up that's being done by X0
[E]ven if they don't do more correction, the fact is the amount of colour correction and film cleanup they did in 1993 is way more then the X0 project is [doing].

Now, can you explain how that isn't ripping on the X0 Project?

Certainly, I was simply putting Marvolo's points into context, and if you look back he's actually edited his points now. All I wanted to show was that the points he made were biased.Originally posted by: Karyudo
I reiterate: no matter how much you pretend to be rational and objective, you are not, as long as you continue to present "facts" such as the ones quoted above.

Anything there isn't clear evidence for is clearly identified as being speculation and not fact.

"- George is not doing for the OUT what he did for his revised versions (i.e. colour correction, cleaning, anamorphic transfer, etc.), which is disappointing since he clearly could have done better, and we know this is true even before seeing the results."

The way I see it is that it's good news that he's not going to crank up the film grain removal, and re-colour the entire film yet again.

Some were not blessed with brains.
<blockquote>Originally posted by: BadAssKeith

You are passing up on a great opportunity to makes lots of money,
make Lucas lose a lot of his money
and make him look bad to the entire world
and you could be well known and liked

None of us here like Lucas or Lucasfilm.
I have death wishes on Lucas and Macullum.
we could all probably get 10s of thousands of dollars!

Author: Karyudo
Time: 27-Jul-2006 11:02 PM
Post link

Originally posted by: boris
The way I see it is that it's good news that he's not going to crank up the film grain removal, and re-colour the entire film yet again.

Can't disagree with that.

Author: Knightmessenger
Time: 28-Jul-2006 2:36 AM
Post link

This bickering is pointless...

Anyways, the fact that it is even debateable whether the official dvd will be better than the X0 or not is telling. It really woudn't be hard for Lucas to release a good quality transfer. And I don't see how the Indiana Jones dvd set is like film coloring. That would be the 2004 Star Wars dvds. If the colors had not been so screwed up, I would have been happy with them. That has to be the worst film "restoration" ever. (at least for a home video release)

Take back the trilogy. Execute Order '77

http://www.youtube.com/user/Knightmessenger

Author: skyjedi2005
Time: 28-Jul-2006 4:13 PM
Post link

quote "These dvds suck cock"

I laughed my ass when I read your post because you hit the nail right on the head LOL!

“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.

Author: Sluggo
Time: 28-Jul-2006 6:21 PM
Post link

Originally posted by: Marvolo
I have a solution. We stop creating boards about the OUT release unless we have something informative and useful to say.

And an Amen, Hallelujiah! from the brothers in the back. How many of these things do we need?

Author: boris
Time: 29-Jul-2006 7:41 AM
Post link

Originally posted by: Knightmessenger
And I don't see how the Indiana Jones dvd set is like film coloring.

Film colouring changes the dynamics of the movie - it essentially pretends the movie is something that it's not - so by colouring a b&w film you make it look like it was shot on colour.

The same thing applies to the changes they made to the indy changes. One of the changes they made involved digitally removing a reflection from plexiglass that was in the movie. It was in the movie because at the time it was impossible to digitally remove, however movies today when they're shot can have those things digitally edited with the click of your fingers. For instance, in ROTJ there's a mirrored scene with the uniforms the wrong way around, and in the 2004 version they switched the uniforms while keeping the scene mirrored. Another example is in terminator 2 when a stunt-man drives the truck off the bridge - that scene is mirrored, and while they did digitally mirror the sign the truck drives past they didn't doctor the driver and steering wheel to the other side because they didn't have the technology, so instead they darkened the windows so you couldn't see the driver.

That is why it's like film colouring.

Author: Karyudo
Time: 29-Jul-2006 11:00 AM
Post link

I can't get too excited about changes like that. In those cases, I would actually buy George's (Steven's, James') argument that he's fixing stuff that he wanted to fix way back when, but didn't have the resources or technology. In my opinion, that's a little like being able to eliminate typos and print from a computer-typeset master on nicer paper when releasing some Shakespeare play. The play itself isn't any different (plot, characters, pacing, etc.) but the delivery method is contemporized.

But start changing guns to walkie-talkies, changing the order in which events happen (or don't happen), and replacing characters wholesale, and I figure you're not just fixing stuff you couldn't fix -- because you could, somehow, even when the film was made. Now you're just messing with something that doesn't need messing with. Not cool.

Author: Marvolo
Time: 29-Jul-2006 2:51 PM
Post link

Gary Kurtz said George Lucas had the oppurtunity to film the Han/Greedo scene, with Greedo shooting first, but the script wasn't changed so they filmed it the way it was originally planned, with Han shooting first. So all this " I couldn't do it the way I wanted to in 1977 so I changed it" is total bull.

Author: C3PX
Time: 29-Jul-2006 3:46 PM
Post link

I do think all this fighting and Lucas bashing is childish. A lot of us have been looking forward to the X0 projext for a long time and have expected it to the best we will ever get. There was a fleeting moment of sceptical excitment when this new set was announced, since then further news has been disappointing. To say all the people waiting for the X0 are a bunch of pirates, I must ask, how many times must I buy this movie before I legally own a copy of it? The only DVD version I have is the old TR47s, I own more legal versions of the film than I can even think of off the top of my head. I have wasted so much money on those relics wasting away in boxes than I care to know. Most of the other OOT fans here also own numerous versions each. I would go as far as to bet each of them owns at least one if not more legal sets of this trilogy. How much do we need to spend before we are allowed to own a DVD-R backup of laserdiscs many of us already own without being given grief about it. If these exact DVDs that are coming in September had come out in the late 90s when the DVD thing was just taking off and the quality standards were lower, I think we all would have been happy, and OT.com probably never would have been concieved. Maybe we would be asking for a higher quality set by 2007 for the 30ths saga boxset, but my point is that back then it would have been acceptable. Now it is pretty lame to be releasing such a joke of a DVD. A 2006 DVD release of any movie, regardless of when it was filmed, ought to kick the pants off of its ten year old counterpart Laserdisc release.

That said, I used to think Lucas was this amazing person, my favorite movies had his name on them, my favorite games had his name on them, I really thought he was something. Now when I look at the things he makes, all the way from the products of his gaming company (I don't really blame the crap they now come up with on him) to his most recent three film (which is all he has made in an amazingly long amount of time, I see a lot of potiential that has been lost for the sake of making large amounts of money with as little effort as needed taking place. I used to expect great things when his name was present, now I expect crap. I can't really help that, it isn't my fault that he and his companies decided to hang the idea of quality. If some people still think they are getting greatness whenever they see his name tacked onto something, then I am happy they have lower standards than me. Some people still flock to the store everytime a new John Grisham novel is released, and some of us have decided we are tired of reading the same old story recycled and rereleased over and over again. I don't think there is a point in hating Lucas, nobody here really even knows him to really hate him. It is just a reaction to their continual disappointment. Honestly they need to get over it, it has been over ten years now, they really need to see reality. Those of us that are used to disappointment after three trips to the cinema we waited years for know better than to get too exited about these DVDs. If this new release turns out to be wonderful, and everything we ever dreamed for despite not being anamorphic, great. In that case some of our old faith in George will probably be restored. Judging by the record, it isn't too likely, please forgive us for our pessimism.

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author: boris
Time: 30-Jul-2006 12:29 AM
Post link

Originally posted by: Karyudo
I can't get too excited about changes like that. In those cases, I would actually buy George's (Steven's, James') argument that he's fixing stuff that he wanted to fix way back when, but didn't have the resources or technology.

But with my T2 example, they did all they could at the time, right down to reversing the text on the sign the truck drives past. I don't want to see the driver bought back by CGI. I don't want Arni's endoskeleton to be replaced with T3-friendly CGI as opposed to the make-up that took hours to apply. digital fudging of old and classic movies just does not float my boat. You're taking it out of context, and with the Indy movies you're pretending that movies made in the 80's were done with today's technology, yet shot on yesterdays technology, using methods they would now do in other ways? It does not work for me. It's like the replacements in The Lion King - they're just killing the classic movie by "improving it". It's film colourization, because you're digitally fudging the imperfections, which is what colourization tries to do - to fudge the imperfection of the absence of colour – to say "well I would have shot it on colour film, if I could have" and then to fudge it.

The effects shots should look like 80's effects shots, they're not perfect – but that's how they did it back then. In E.T. you had some scenes replaced by a CGI E.T.! And you're going on about walkie talkies - and I agree changing that was stupid, but it's worrying they introduced CGI E.T. and stuff. This is why I'm looking forward to Blade Runner next year, it will be like Alien - presented well, authentically and the way the sane director wants it. I trust Scott not to digitally fudge and introduce CGI - because he respects his art.

Author: SilverWook
Time: 30-Jul-2006 12:58 AM
Post link

If George was really unhappy with the scene, why didn't he reshoot it during the production of the Holiday Special in 1978? (I don't think Lucasfilm had fled Hollywood for Northern California just yet.) You had a recreated cantina set handy, the Greedo costume, and Harrison Ford all in the same place!

Where were you in '77?

Author: Karyudo
Time: 30-Jul-2006 1:41 AM
Post link

I'll bet you five bucks that when Spielberg finally noticed the reflection of the glass in the Indy cobra scene, it was way too late to reshoot. I'll bet it's a total "d'oh!" moment (even though "d'oh" wouldn't be invented for another eight years or so). That method is probably exactly what they'd do today: it's a cheap, effective, practical effect. It just had a tiny flaw. It's obviously preserved someplace in all its reflective glory (I have it in HD, for example), so I don't mind it being digitally fixed up for the DVD box set.

What's more distressing to me is the sound changes -- specifically, Indy's pistol. That was cranked way up for the DVD release, when I figure it should have been left alone. What was wrong with it?

I haven't watched ET on DVD. ET's now CG in places?!? So wrong... But didn't Spielberg release the untouched version at the same time?

Our buddy George could have avoided all the name-calling if he'da just released each film on DVD as a three-disc set: tricked-out 2004 remix version that he loves (and that everyone else could ignore, sorta like Superman IV), lovingly preserved anamorphic 1977 version that the fans obviously love, and a disc of extras (hopefully with some insight into the changes: why and how)

I'd watch a two-hour documentary just on an in-depth looks at ILM's pioneering effects work. Show me the step-by-step differences between shooting motion controlled X-Wings in 1976 and the limitations of optically compositing them, versus building virtual X-Wings and compositing those. Show me the details! Amaze me with the progress made in 30 years! Make me feel wonder that the film could even be made the way they had to make it in 1976! Split screen the exact differences! Let me indulge my (not so) inner nerd!

Author: boris
Time: 30-Jul-2006 6:00 AM
Post link

Originally posted by: Karyudo
I'll bet you five bucks that when Spielberg finally noticed the reflection of the glass in the Indy cobra scene, it was way too late to reshoot. I'll bet it's a total "d'oh!" moment (even though "d'oh" wouldn't be invented for another eight years or so). That method is probably exactly what they'd do today: it's a cheap, effective, practical effect. It just had a tiny flaw. It's obviously preserved someplace in all its reflective glory (I have it in HD, for example), so I don't mind it being digitally fixed up for the DVD box set.

That's not the only change, I notice almost every single change they made, and for me it makes the film unenjoyable because I know how it used to be, and when I don't see what I'm expecting I feel it's an insult to my intelligence. They didn't have to do any digital fudging - but instead they chose to fix the things they couldn't fix before due to technology - like the blue-screen shots. One of the things about watching older movies is you know it's a blue-screen effect if there's a blue-cast on the characters (especially hair, etc). To take that out makes it look like a modern effect, which is a lie because it's an old movie. They didn't have to change anything, they shouldn't have digitally fudged it - and I refuse to purchase their fudged version. The unaltered Indy trilogy, along with the SW Trilogy is one of the things on DVD I have waited for for the longest time, and I continue to wait - and I know Lucasfilm never will release unaltered indy. The very least they could have done was seamless branching so you watch the original - but they didn't even do that. The changes are no bigger then the changes they made to The Lion King - but you check it out Lion King fans are outraged by the changes - and I for one agree. Movies should not be modified - and if they are, the original should always be available.

"But didn't Spielberg release the untouched version at the same time?"

Yes, but I don't think we ever got an official domestic release - and i'm pretty sure australia didn't either.

Author: klokwerk
Time: 30-Jul-2006 7:38 AM
Post link

Originally posted by: boris

Originally posted by: Karyudo
"But didn't Spielberg release the untouched version at the same time?"

Yes, but I don't think we ever got an official domestic release - and i'm pretty sure australia didn't either.

You're from Australia, boris? I can say that yes, that's true. While the Theatrical version of E.T. was released alongside the digitally altered version, Australia didn't get it at all. I think the R1 giftset was the only way to get the theatrical version? In any case, I applaud Spielberg for making the original available when he released the altered version. I still need to track down a copy for myself though.

On the note of Indiana Jones; boris, I can understand your stance that movies should be released as they were originally presented. If the filmmaker wants to 'fix up' effects or 'fudge' with the film then he has every right to. However, they should also make them film available in a version as close as possible to the original theatrical version. I say 'as close as possible' because just transferring the film from celluloid to digital causes minute changes, remastering/restoring causing even more.

Back to Indiana Jones specifically; boris, you might want to track down a copy of the HDTV version of Raiders/Doom (not sure which one it was) that was discussed on these boards a few weeks ago. It contains the pre-"Lowry Digital restoration" version, so its the original version.

To contact me outside the forum, for trades and such my email address is my OT.com username @gmail.com

Author: boris
Time: 30-Jul-2006 8:46 AM
Post link

Originally posted by: klokwerk
You're from Australia, boris? No, wellington actually.I can say that yes, that's true. While the Theatrical version of E.T. was released alongside the digitally altered version, Australia didn't get it at all.

No, but here I can go down to the local shops and have them import a version for me, if its not released in NZ and if they haven't already imported it and put it on the shelf (or if I just specifically want the overseas version). Of course I can also order online, as I sometimes do. A majority of the DVD's on our shelves are imported from Australia, and so as I've not seen an Aus DVD of E.T. being sold with the theatrical version lead to me to assume it's not been released here, nor there. We're not the only country in the world which relies on international releases either, which is why it would bother me greatly if Blu-Ray and HD-DVD tried to impose region coding on us - as you probably know, it is illegal to sell region-locked DVD players in NZ - and how Playstation and XBox get away with it I don't know, but the fact of the matter is that retailers are responcible for ensuring that every DVD player they sell will play all DVD regions or they can't sell it.

From what I've heard Aus has 4-5 times the number of movies released by local DVD distributors then we do, and the USA/Canada have more then 50 times the number of movies we do (which is why it's legal to import them from foreign distributors for retail - they call that parallel importing, and it's legal to parallel import movies, music, books and I think software and computer games too). Removing the vaseline smudge under the speeder in SW is roughly the same as removing the cobra reflection - its digital fudging and something they couldn't have done when the movie was made.