logo Sign In

Where do I go from here as a SW fan? — Page 7

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-TonicTo me that instantly nails that feeling I had watching the originals in the theater, where it all looks so real, but has that twitch to it that your brain adjusts to, but still gives you that slight feeling like you are hallucinating or something.
God, I had a feeling you were a fucked up drugie....hallucinating...indeed. That explains alot about you....



I love everybody. Lets all smoke some reefer and chill. Hug and kisses for everybody.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
Set against the backdrop of growing up in an era where it just didn't get better than laserdisc, the way some people make it out like they just can't watch it because it so horribe seems a tad over the top.

I'm sure this could've been said of any era. I'm sure my dad thought it would never get any better than his 16 mm camcorder. Thank God technology moved forward and gave us far more convenient and better media.

Originally posted by: Go-Mer-TonicHow many of us were fine when we got our widescreen VHS's back in the day?

Fine? I suppose. But I wasn't fine because it was on VHS. I was fine because I could finally see the whole picture. Once I actually found out about widescreen vs pan & scan, I wanted nothing other than VHS movies in widescreen. My tv was only 13" or so at the time, but I wanted to see the whole picture. It didn't matter much on any movie beyond Star Wars, but that's what I watched most of the time. But I wasn't fine with nearly every other aspect of VHS (constant wear and tear, jumping picture when pausing, tracking, etc). Basically, everything that DVD does better, I was unhappy with VHS for.

Originally posted by: Go-Mer-TonicHow many of us were upset about the graineyness when it was out on laserdisc?

I honestly never noticed it until DVDs got released. But I tend not to notice that type of thing until I'm shown a better picture. And that's really the point. We've all seen better quality now, so watching laserdisc quality on a DVD is a real downer.

Originally posted by: Go-Mer-TonicIt's not that they got worse, it's that we became more demanding.


That's right. Which is why in 2006, LFL shouldn't be releasing a laserdisc quality movie on DVD. They took state of the art from 1993, that's 13 years ago, and stuck it on a DVD.

Originally posted by: Go-Mer-TonicFor me, wether I was watching it on Pan N Scan or on my black and white TV in my room, or even just listening to the storybook album before I had access to home video, the spirit is still there. To me these movies trancend their presentation.


In that case, you'd probably be happy if Lucas had released that really crappy cam bootleg of Star Wars 'The Starkiller DVD' officially with no improvements to image quality. It's a nice thing to have for reference, but the quality is utter crap and nearly unwatchable.

Originally posted by: Go-Mer-TonicI'm not saying anyone else is wrong for not being able to enjoy it unless it's the best it can possibly be in this day and age, I'm just saying that to me the September release seems to be a whole lot better than what we had before. Even if it isn't PAL resolution laserdisc, I still don't have to flip the disc during each movie.


It's better to you because it's more convenient. When most people look at a DVD release, they don't think to themselves "Well, this is better than the VHS because it's more convenient". They think "this is better because it's higher quality and will look good on my tv". You must be in a very small minority to consider convenience as the main factor of being better.

Originally posted by: Go-Mer-TonicLast night I popped in Star Wars on my PC and got fairly close to the monitor. I can certainly see what you guys are saying about the resolution and the jaggy lines and the graineyness. But at the same time I think the colors and general sharpness is pretty good. One thing I love the most about this release is the way you get the image instability. To me that instantly nails that feeling I had watching the originals in the theater, where it all looks so real, but has that twitch to it that your brain adjusts to, but still gives you that slight feeling like you are hallucinating or something. Like this "reality" is slightly off the tracks.


Dude, the "image instability" is the worst thing about this release. Based on what I've seen, that shake is very noticable and just nasty. I really don't want to feel like I'm hallucinating when I watch Star Wars. I want to be drawn into the movie. That shake completely drops me out of the movie it's so noticeable. Not to mention all the scratches and other things I notice.

F Scale score - 3.3333333333333335

You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.

Pissing off Rob since August 2007.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: vbangle
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-TonicTo me that instantly nails that feeling I had watching the originals in the theater, where it all looks so real, but has that twitch to it that your brain adjusts to, but still gives you that slight feeling like you are hallucinating or something.
God, I had a feeling you were a fucked up drugie....hallucinating...indeed. That explains alot about you....


Haha

F Scale score - 3.3333333333333335

You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.

Pissing off Rob since August 2007.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

It's not that they got worse, it's that we became more demanding.


With modern quality, you better be damn sure that I'm not going to spend twenty bucks a piece for three movies in substandard quality. I already owned the damn 2004 special editions and so as a fan of the original trilogy I'm very disappointed and thus I complain. Complaining gets results. It's not difficult to understand, Go-Mer.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Post link
I guess, as long as it works.

I'm not saying you shouldn't ask for better, I'm just saying that I think this September release, while not ideal is pretty cool for what it is.
Your focus determines your reality.
Author
Time
Post link
It seems when SW finally get what they wish, it gets horribly distorted in ways no one could ever imagine. And to think a worn out 25-year old VHS tape is 100 times better in quality than the DVD release for the OOT makes you suicidal. To think that this will be the last time ever Lucasfilm will release the Originals in such bad quality is also a fatal blow for all film preservationists everywhere. Believe me, Lucas will keep these films out of public domain for centuries to come; the only solution is to have a DVD recorder in 1977,1980, and 1983 because no fan would have imagined this tragedy of astronomical porortions.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: generalfrevious
Believe me, Lucas will keep these films out of public domain for centuries to come.


George Lucas is not immortal. He will not live for centuries, and his corporate influence will not last for centuries. That is a fact. He is flawed, just like all of mankind (or possibly more so, depends on your POV).
Author
Time
Post link
Oh, come on! He will put in his will a yesman like McCallum to run the company after his death, and then McCallum will put up another yesman, and so on and so forth.
Author
Time
Post link
You know, the worst thing about Star Wars is that it used to be about fun. It was a fun movie series and I would have loved to own mutlple versions. Because its creator is a magalomaniac with little common sense, its turned into something serious. We now debate about his vision and profits. It's all become so fucking stupid. Star Wars is not that important. They're just movies. If George wants to pretend he's some "auteur" genius and refuses to offer me something I would actually want, then I couldn't care less anymore.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: generalfrevious
Oh, come on! He will put in his will a yesman like McCallum to run the company after his death, and then McCallum will put up another yesman, and so on and so forth.


No, you come on. It is highly probable that the company will fall into the hands of a person who wants to appease the fans, and recognizes the artistic and cultural merit of the films. You are trying to vilify the company for something they haven't even done yet.
Author
Time
Post link
How do you know the next person after Lucas will want to appease the fans?
(BTW, I meant Lucasfilm, not Lucas)
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: generalfrevious
How do you know the next person after Lucas will want to appease the fans?
(BTW, I meant Lucasfilm, not Lucas)


I'm not saying that the NEXT person after him will have a love of the franchise, but sooner or later someone is going to come along and recognize what has happened to the franchise. To give you an example of this, take Star Trek for example. It was under the rule of Rick Berman and Brannon Braga for years, and they put oiut some of the worst episode Trek had to offer. It got so bad that (if memory serves) they offered to buy out the rest of Berman's contract, but he refused. After the show Enterprise was finished, the two of them were kicked to the can, and we now have J.J. Abrams, who at least recognizes what a confused mess the franchise has become. It stands to reason that a fairly large number of people are already disillusioned with what Lucas has to offer. If this continues, the profits of the company will start sinking, and it will cause him, or the next person after him, or the next to rethink their strategy on how to appease the customers. It happens to virtually every company, and it's been happening for years. Companies change up their management and change up their leadership style.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: lordjedi

Originally posted by: Go-Mer-TonicLast night I popped in Star Wars on my PC and got fairly close to the monitor. I can certainly see what you guys are saying about the resolution and the jaggy lines and the graineyness. But at the same time I think the colors and general sharpness is pretty good. One thing I love the most about this release is the way you get the image instability. To me that instantly nails that feeling I had watching the originals in the theater, where it all looks so real, but has that twitch to it that your brain adjusts to, but still gives you that slight feeling like you are hallucinating or something. Like this "reality" is slightly off the tracks.


Dude, the "image instability" is the worst thing about this release. Based on what I've seen, that shake is very noticable and just nasty. I really don't want to feel like I'm hallucinating when I watch Star Wars. I want to be drawn into the movie. That shake completely drops me out of the movie it's so noticeable. Not to mention all the scratches and other things I notice.

lordjedi, I've agreed with most of what you've said so far, but I have to disagree with you here. The "image instability" Go-mer referred to is just gate weave, which is not generally considered to be a flaw. It's an inherent part of the film process- if you go to see Casino Royale in a theater today, you will also see gate weave (if you look for it- generally, if you don't seek it out- you won't notice it). You will also see gate weave on at least 90% of all DVDs released today (most noticeable during the opening and ending credits). Any film that is run through a projector or a telecine, will have some gate weave. Only films that have been scanned frame-by-frame for DVD release will not have it. Most DVD movies have not been scanned this way, because the process is more expensive than using a telecine. However, just because a telecine has been used to make a DVD transfer doesn't mean that the transfer can't be excellent. In fact, there are some who are critical of using the scanning process because they feel it makes the transfer look more like video than film. Personally, I don't really have a preference either way.

These DVDs do have flaws and the true flaws do deserve criticism, but I don't think it's fair to criticise them for something that technically is not a flaw. I don't know if you've watched all three of the DVDs in their entirety, but I've watched all three of them 2 or 3 times each so far, and to me, the gate weave is no worse than on any other DVD I have, or any movie I've seen theatrically. In fact, they're better than some DVDs I have (ie-the Rocky Horror 25th Anniversary DVD has some scenes where the gate weave is far more apparent).

Anyhow, just my 2 cents.



Author
Time
Post link
Aside from 3 prequels that some people liked and others didn't.... and this tech-nerd hubris of a nonanamorphic DVD what has LFL really done for people to act like he's the Jeff Dahmer of movie makers?
"Among many things I have to be thankful for are you, the fans. I know that some of you haven't liked every single thing that I've done with the saga, and that you have a strong sense of ownership over all things Star Wars. But take that passion and devotion and channel it into a creative project of your own."
-George Lucas
Author
Time
Post link
NO RANDY, it's because no other movie in film history has been locked up by its own creator in an attempt to erase memories of a beloved franchise. And when the OOT finally comes out, its given a substandard industry release- which I think is criminal. These discs are not standard DVD quality.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: generalfrevious
And when the OOT finally comes out, its given a substandard industry release- which I think is criminal. These discs are not standard DVD quality.


Agreed. That's why I didn't buy them.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: JediRandyand this tech-nerd hubris of a nonanamorphic DVD what has LFL really done for people to act like he's the Jeff Dahmer of movie makers?


Dude, go check every DVD that you will buy this year, and let me know if any of them are Non-Anamorphic? It isn't about tech lingo or anything, it is about putting out DVD's in DVD quality circa 2006, and the bottom line is nobody releases an A type movie in this quality. The fact that I can watch Gigl in Anamorphic Video and I cant with the O-OT should answer your question why so many people are mad.


I’m an original member here dating back to 2004. Haven’t posted in years, but looking forward to posting again.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Mielr
Originally posted by: lordjedi

Originally posted by: Go-Mer-TonicLast night I popped in Star Wars on my PC and got fairly close to the monitor. I can certainly see what you guys are saying about the resolution and the jaggy lines and the graineyness. But at the same time I think the colors and general sharpness is pretty good. One thing I love the most about this release is the way you get the image instability. To me that instantly nails that feeling I had watching the originals in the theater, where it all looks so real, but has that twitch to it that your brain adjusts to, but still gives you that slight feeling like you are hallucinating or something. Like this "reality" is slightly off the tracks.


Dude, the "image instability" is the worst thing about this release. Based on what I've seen, that shake is very noticable and just nasty. I really don't want to feel like I'm hallucinating when I watch Star Wars. I want to be drawn into the movie. That shake completely drops me out of the movie it's so noticeable. Not to mention all the scratches and other things I notice.

lordjedi, I've agreed with most of what you've said so far, but I have to disagree with you here. The "image instability" Go-mer referred to is just gate weave, which is not generally considered to be a flaw. It's an inherent part of the film process- if you go to see Casino Royale in a theater today, you will also see gate weave (if you look for it- generally, if you don't seek it out- you won't notice it). You will also see gate weave on at least 90% of all DVDs released today (most noticeable during the opening and ending credits). Any film that is run through a projector or a telecine, will have some gate weave. Only films that have been scanned frame-by-frame for DVD release will not have it. Most DVD movies have not been scanned this way, because the process is more expensive than using a telecine. However, just because a telecine has been used to make a DVD transfer doesn't mean that the transfer can't be excellent. In fact, there are some who are critical of using the scanning process because they feel it makes the transfer look more like video than film. Personally, I don't really have a preference either way.

These DVDs do have flaws and the true flaws do deserve criticism, but I don't think it's fair to criticise them for something that technically is not a flaw. I don't know if you've watched all three of the DVDs in their entirety, but I've watched all three of them 2 or 3 times each so far, and to me, the gate weave is no worse than on any other DVD I have, or any movie I've seen theatrically. In fact, they're better than some DVDs I have (ie-the Rocky Horror 25th Anniversary DVD has some scenes where the gate weave is far more apparent).

Anyhow, just my 2 cents.



Gate weave is most definitly not part of the film. If you see Casino Royale and it is shaking all over the place--that means the projectionist is a fucking moron and hasn't threaded the film correctly. Watch another film on DVD? Do you see gate weave? Probably not. Gate weave is an artifical flaw introduced in the projection stage due to inadequete equipment. In the case of the GOUT, its a flaw created through the piece of shit transfer--the 1993 telecine didn't hold the film steady as it passed through the scanner, and so the image wobbles. A modern scan would yield a rock-solid image--such as the 2004 dvd.

And yes, the gate weave on the GOUT is pretty bad. Older movies and older telecines had more noticeable gate weave but this problem has been mostly overcome in recent years, although you still see a telecine from time to time (the dvd of Troy is hidious and features many video exposure flaws as well as lots of gate weave).
Author
Time
Post link
I think from here, everyone should get a Nintendo Wii.
Your focus determines your reality.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Mielr
lordjedi, I've agreed with most of what you've said so far, but I have to disagree with you here. The "image instability" Go-mer referred to is just gate weave

--snip--

Anyhow, just my 2 cents.


I snipped most of it because I've read it before and didn't feel the need to requote everything. All I can say is that I've honestly never seen gate weave to that extent on any other DVD I own. It may be there, but I've never noticed it. I also didn't have to have it pointed out to me on this release. As soon as I started up a sample, I saw it. I honestly couldn't believe my eyes. It was like someone was shaking my monitor. I don't have any other DVDs that do this.

I've also never seen this happen at a theater during any movie. I've noticed a slight shake in the beginning on some films, but never to this extent. Again, it was like someone was shaking the monitor.

If that's something that can be corrected, as zombie said it was, then again, there is no reason to release a DVD like that in 2006.
F Scale score - 3.3333333333333335

You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.

Pissing off Rob since August 2007.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: lordjedi

I snipped most of it because I've read it before and didn't feel the need to requote everything. All I can say is that I've honestly never seen gate weave to that extent on any other DVD I own. It may be there, but I've never noticed it. I also didn't have to have it pointed out to me on this release. As soon as I started up a sample, I saw it. I honestly couldn't believe my eyes. It was like someone was shaking my monitor. I don't have any other DVDs that do this.

I've also never seen this happen at a theater during any movie. I've noticed a slight shake in the beginning on some films, but never to this extent. Again, it was like someone was shaking the monitor.

If that's something that can be corrected, as zombie said it was, then again, there is no reason to release a DVD like that in 2006.
Originally posted by: zombie84
Gate weave is most definitly not part of the film. If you see Casino Royale and it is shaking all over the place--that means the projectionist is a fucking moron and hasn't threaded the film correctly. Watch another film on DVD? Do you see gate weave? Probably not. Gate weave is an artifical flaw introduced in the projection stage due to inadequete equipment. In the case of the GOUT, its a flaw created through the piece of shit transfer--the 1993 telecine didn't hold the film steady as it passed through the scanner, and so the image wobbles. A modern scan would yield a rock-solid image--such as the 2004 dvd.

And yes, the gate weave on the GOUT is pretty bad. Older movies and older telecines had more noticeable gate weave but this problem has been mostly overcome in recent years, although you still see a telecine from time to time (the dvd of Troy is hidious and features many video exposure flaws as well as lots of gate weave).


I'm sorry but gate weave IS part of the film. It is part of the process of a strip of film running through a projector, and the slight side-to-side movement that occurs as the sprocket holes for each frame are taken up.

Perhaps you are watching the DVDs on your computer and sitting too close to the screen? Like I said before, if you LOOK for gate weave, you will see it. And yes, you will usually see it at the beginning of a film because it is more noticeable when you are reading text- it's still there during the rest of the film- it's just not as apparent.

Try sitting further away from your screen I think you'll be surprised at how the gate weave appears to lessen.

I think it hurts our cause to complain about flaws that aren't flaws. There are so many other flaws to complain about- the non-anamorphic issue being the biggest, the aliasing being 2nd.....I can understand how others brush us off as fanatics, when we start complaining about gate weave, film grain, color breathing and other issues inherent of motion picture film.

But again- that's just my 2 cents. Do as you will.



Author
Time
Post link
To be honest, gate weave is a minor issue to me since I do only seem to notice it when I'm watching it up close or on the computer. My biggest beef is in fact the non-anamorphic issue.
F Scale score - 3.3333333333333335

You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.

Pissing off Rob since August 2007.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: lordjedi
To be honest, gate weave is a minor issue to me since I do only seem to notice it when I'm watching it up close or on the computer. My biggest beef is in fact the non-anamorphic issue. We are in agreement there.

I also noticed the gate weave when those first few clips leaked out (the "new" crawl, the Jedi finale, etc.), and I was surprised to see it. It turns out that I had just never watched the SW films with my face 12 inches from a computer screen before. I checked my Faces LDs and sure enough- the gate weave is present on them as well, but I just never noticed it because I watched them several feet from my TV.

When I finally brought the DVDs home and popped them into the player, I didn't notice the gate weave at all.
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
I think from here, everyone should get a Nintendo Wii.
I think everyone around here is tense enough already- are you trying to start a riot?

Author
Time
Post link
My friend has an HD tv, and I watched each movie of the trilogy on it. I think it's just that when you go to a higher, better tech format for viewing things such as this are more visible. I mean this is the first time it seems that an older format has just been transferred to a more modern one, but it was extremely noticable and looked bad. When I watch the new DVDs on my non HD tv the movies look fine. Not that it was originally part of the film tho, the gate weave.

As far as who the franchise passes to, it'll probably be his kids. They are young right now, and are probably responsible for inspiring the ruinition of the newer movies, but they'll get older...but I still think they won't understand jack about what Star Wars is about. They've just been born into it. Even if they learn more as they grow older their negative imprint remains. I doubt it'll be reversed at this point. Lucas and those close to him refuse to acknowledge anything's gone wrong. Their loss.