- Time
- Post link
First Impressions of the OOT ... — Page 10
- Time
- Post link
Perfection is what you shoot for, good enough is what you always get in the end.
At the end of the day Star Wars will be what Star Wars will be.
You can either enjoy it for what it is, or lament it for what it's not.
I choose the former.
If I'm ignorantly enjoying it more than I should, then that's sort of like cheating life out of sucking as much as it could have.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: ShiftyEyes
As far as the video of the Apocalypse Redux disc goes, the DVD does use seamless branching between the two cuts. So some sequences use the same video. However, this doesn't mean whole scenes play with the same transfer. Either way, I believe whatever wasn't in Redux or vice versa was taken from the previously released DVD.
As far as the video of the Apocalypse Redux disc goes, the DVD does use seamless branching between the two cuts. So some sequences use the same video. However, this doesn't mean whole scenes play with the same transfer. Either way, I believe whatever wasn't in Redux or vice versa was taken from the previously released DVD.
Theres no branching. Its both movies as their own movies.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
The truth is that Star Wars will be what it turns out to be.
Perfection is what you shoot for, good enough is what you always get in the end.
At the end of the day Star Wars will be what Star Wars will be.
You can either enjoy it for what it is, or lament it for what it's not.
I choose the former.
If I'm ignorantly enjoying it more than I should, then that's sort of like cheating life out of sucking as much as it could have.
The truth is that Star Wars will be what it turns out to be.
Perfection is what you shoot for, good enough is what you always get in the end.
At the end of the day Star Wars will be what Star Wars will be.
You can either enjoy it for what it is, or lament it for what it's not.
I choose the former.
If I'm ignorantly enjoying it more than I should, then that's sort of like cheating life out of sucking as much as it could have.
Great. Now he's a plilosaphizer.
You can also access the entire Horriffic Violence Theater Series from my Channel Page.
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
There is no lingerie in space…
C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
You can either enjoy it for what it is, or lament it for what it's not.
I choose the former.
I choose the former.
I'm not sure how that agrees with what you just said. I mean, the whole purpose of the SEs was NOT enjoying it for what it was and lamenting what it was not and then making steps to change that.
There is no lingerie in space…
C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Guy Caballero
Yeah, but I am not a scientologist and I'm not Ned Flanders, I have negative reactions to things sometimes. But anyway, I thought Apocalypse 79 looking more muted than Redux was appropriate, and the idea of a technicolor Star Wars is really something, though. I'm curious what was Lucas' motivation in creating it originally? Just for posterity?
Yeah, but I am not a scientologist and I'm not Ned Flanders, I have negative reactions to things sometimes. But anyway, I thought Apocalypse 79 looking more muted than Redux was appropriate, and the idea of a technicolor Star Wars is really something, though. I'm curious what was Lucas' motivation in creating it originally? Just for posterity?
Yeah, its appropriate that the theatrical edition of Apocalypse Now is more muted than Redux but I felt that it could have been a bit more vibrant. Its really the limit of the print and transfer used for the DVD. Theres so much noise and grain that you can't really process the image any more. Its the same transfer from the 1999 DVD, and it mostly holds up--obviously they are waiting for the HD release before they do a new transfer. Will be very greatful when that happens. The Redux print is the most accurate in terms of colours, and the quality of the image is just astounding--it really is the best home video print I've ever seen, even if the actual transfer is only so-so, being from 2001.
Does anyone know if Technicolour prints actually boost saturation at all or is it just that normal Kodak prints rob the colour information so badly? Either way it looks very lush and vibrant, but theres a really indescribable quality to the tonal values, and the fact that it is struck directly from the O-neg really brings out the detail. Would be a dream if they could reconstruct the theatrical cut and give it the same treatment. I think the theatrical cut is one of the most important films ever made in America.
As for Star Wars, yeah, Lucas had the seperation masters made for himself for preservations sake. He also has complete technicolour print that is immaculate condition--this is what he gave to YCM labs as a reference guide when the restored the film for the SE. Scanning the seperation masters into a new 4K DI would basically preserve Star Wars forever in perfect form. What is the point of having these seperation masters if they aren't going to be used?? Maybe one day...
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: zombie84
Does anyone know if Technicolour prints actually boost saturation at all or is it just that normal Kodak prints rob the colour information so badly? Either way it looks very lush and vibrant, but theres a really indescribable quality to the tonal values, and the fact that it is struck directly from the O-neg really brings out the detail.
Does anyone know if Technicolour prints actually boost saturation at all or is it just that normal Kodak prints rob the colour information so badly? Either way it looks very lush and vibrant, but theres a really indescribable quality to the tonal values, and the fact that it is struck directly from the O-neg really brings out the detail.
I depends on whether or not the Kodak elements are faded. Dye-transfer Technicolor prints are made in a totally different way from chemical-based prints. The dye-transfer process is similar to the lithography process- the way fine art lithographs are made. Dye-transfer prints are known for their deep, inky blacks and lack of film grain- and colors that don't fade with time like Kodak prints do.
Some nice Technicolor examples here.
- Time
- Post link
The quality is shit not much better than the definitive collection laserdiscs, and those have the uncompressed full pcm sound.
Moth3r's transfer of the pal laserdiscs from 1995 are better by far.
It's funny to think a product released by lucasfilm in 2006 is not that much better than the asian bootlegs produced years ago. I have seen fan versions from these boards which either match the quality of the official release or beat them soundly in picture and sound quality.
Lucas should be severely criticized by the professional film community for this turd of a release, nothing short of a disgrace and a slap in the face to film fan's everywhere. But especially the true fans of the oot who made him rich beyond the dreams of avarice.
I bought my copies to review them, but I shall urge all true fans to not buy it. and in fact this release is so bad it makes you wish people had not caved and bought them because it should have been boycotted.
Also the 2004 release coupled with this of a new hope still has not been fixed, the sound problems are still there. Plus they still did not bother to fix the color correction and the garbage mattes around starships etc on all thee films.
“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
The truth is that Star Wars will be what it turns out to be.
Perfection is what you shoot for, good enough is what you always get in the end.
At the end of the day Star Wars will be what Star Wars will be.
You can either enjoy it for what it is, or lament it for what it's not.
I choose the former.
I also choose the former whenever I can. (And as Gaffer mentioned, the original, non-SE Star Wars is superior from this point of view.) However, there are levels of quality that should always be achieved if possible. If those levels are not achieved, then there are better sources of entertainment for me to spend my time and resources on. That is why I'm not apposed to George Lucas refining his vision if he wants to. Just let us see what we want at the same time.
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
If I'm ignorantly enjoying [the "Star Wars saga"] more than I should, then that's sort of like cheating life out of sucking as much as it could have.
The truth is that Star Wars will be what it turns out to be.
Perfection is what you shoot for, good enough is what you always get in the end.
At the end of the day Star Wars will be what Star Wars will be.
You can either enjoy it for what it is, or lament it for what it's not.
I choose the former.
I also choose the former whenever I can. (And as Gaffer mentioned, the original, non-SE Star Wars is superior from this point of view.) However, there are levels of quality that should always be achieved if possible. If those levels are not achieved, then there are better sources of entertainment for me to spend my time and resources on. That is why I'm not apposed to George Lucas refining his vision if he wants to. Just let us see what we want at the same time.
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
If I'm ignorantly enjoying [the "Star Wars saga"] more than I should, then that's sort of like cheating life out of sucking as much as it could have.
That's a noble way to look at it, but kind of sad. It would be better if you argued why the prequel movies and the "saga" perspective are valuable works of art from your point of view. Then everyone could at least be seeking the best entertainment we can, not just enjoying anything that arbitrarily comes along. It's not like we're suffering in some horrible prison in a third world country and we have limited options.
For instance, I can understand your enjoyment of George's attempt to make Star Wars into a large interlocking story. Tolkien made an entire, beautiful universe that spanned across many different writings of his. So far though, you could argue that nobody besides George Lucas has tried to create something similar with film. I believe he failed in many ways (since so much does not interlock and there are so many ridiculous differences), but I can at least appreciate what he tried to do. If you enjoy that more than others, then that's good for you. I personally believe that the drama and unpredictable outcomes of the original movies are far, far more important than any attempted "saga" and believe that the prequels ruin those elements far too much (thus I dislike the prequels and strongly believe they should never be watched in episodic order if you don't already know the OT's story first).
"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
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: JediRandy
He's a troll because he gives an opinion that is different from yours.
Originally posted by: lord3vil
troll
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
[snip]
[snip]
troll
He's a troll because he gives an opinion that is different from yours.
Why do you think people who express differing opinions are trolls? I simply noticed that his response to me consisted mostly of unsubstantiated and unreasonable claims rather than opinions, which is why I didn't bother with it.
- Time
- Post link
I was saying quality is subjective, and I could get into a million reasons why I personally think the Saga as a whole blows either trilogy out of the water on their own, but that would really be getting off topic here.
Zombie was giving me the whole "ignorance is bliss" line, which is where my comment came from.
Really I think the lack of ignorance being discussed here is assumed wisdom. I think sometimes you guys are so sure of how you think it should be, that I don't think you really give much thought to how Lucas actually did it. Instead of trying to figure out the method to his madness, you guys jump all over yourselves to declare Lucas a worthless film maker.
Going into the SE's and Prequels, I just let the man tell his story, and that's how I noticed the high level of art behind all the glitzy effects.
I don't think a lot of you want to see that art, I think for many of you, it's about not being able to accept change.
Here is a quote from Lucas I saved from a while back about how Anakin turns to the dark side:
Lucas: The message is you can't possess things. You can't hold on to them. You have to accept change. You have to accept the fact that things transition. And so, as you try to hold on to things or you become afraid of -- that you're going to lose things, then you begin to crave the power to control those things. And then, you start to become greedy and then you turn into a bad person.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: lord3vil
Why do you think people who express differing opinions are trolls? I simply noticed that his response to me consisted mostly of unsubstantiated and unreasonable claims rather than opinions, which is why I didn't bother with it.
Originally posted by: JediRandy
He's a troll because he gives an opinion that is different from yours.
Originally posted by: lord3vil
troll
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
[snip]
[snip]
troll
He's a troll because he gives an opinion that is different from yours.
Why do you think people who express differing opinions are trolls? I simply noticed that his response to me consisted mostly of unsubstantiated and unreasonable claims rather than opinions, which is why I didn't bother with it.
Um, no. People are trolls when they attack members of the forums and insult the site and its members. Gomer is simply offering a different opinion. That doesn't make him a troll.
“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.”
Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
You can read this type of stuff both ways when it comes to the OOT. It can be said to accept the SE but it can also be said that the OOT never should have been changed. Ultimately that kind of "no possessiveness" is not a practical life creed but more of a mental philosophy. Its at odds with human nature and doesn't really work in life.
But whatever. I know that this type of thing is only valuable in the dramatic sense for a story, ie the PT.
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
It's not about posessiveness, it's about not being able to accept the way things change.
It's not about posessiveness, it's about not being able to accept the way things change.
OK, things have changed. I'm not denying Lucas's right to change his films. I don't agree with it, but there you go. I just want a high quality OOT to watch. That is all.
“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.”
Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death
- Time
- Post link
Is that just not good enough?
- Time
- Post link
“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.”
Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
It may not be of the highest quality possible, but this latest release is the highest quality we have seen of the O-OT on home video so far.
Is that just not good enough?
It may not be of the highest quality possible, but this latest release is the highest quality we have seen of the O-OT on home video so far.
Is that just not good enough?
When a company has the technology to successfully insert digital characters into a film that is now 30 years old, then no, the quality of this latest release is no where near good enough from a company like LFL.