- Time
- Post link
How George Lucas created the O-OT fanbase... — Page 2
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Mielr
One way to settle the format wars would be for one the camps to convince GL to release the SW films in their format. People would go out and buy either a blu-ray or hd-dvd player, for the sole purpose of watching the films. I know I would- but only if the OOT was included.
I begged my Mom for my first VCR so that I could buy a tape of Star Wars and watch it, and I bought a LD player so I could watch the OOT on LD. I'm sure many others can say the same.
One way to settle the format wars would be for one the camps to convince GL to release the SW films in their format. People would go out and buy either a blu-ray or hd-dvd player, for the sole purpose of watching the films. I know I would- but only if the OOT was included.
I begged my Mom for my first VCR so that I could buy a tape of Star Wars and watch it, and I bought a LD player so I could watch the OOT on LD. I'm sure many others can say the same.
Lucas cannot seem to grasp this concept, which is a shame, as a proper OOT DVD release would earn him tons of money. Sigh. Pray.
“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
Originally posted by: rennervision
I'm convinced he wants film historians 100 years from now to look at his films and think he invented CGI in 1977.
I'm convinced he wants film historians 100 years from now to look at his films and think he invented CGI in 1977.
LOL! Seems that way.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Mielr
I just got the latest issue of Sound and Vision, and the future does not look bright for blu-ray.
Yeah, that's sad. I read an article about how HD-DVD, while inferior to Blu-Ray in its tech specs, is MUCH more cost-effective for a production line change-over. A process is in place right now that can convert your standard DVD production line into an HD-DVD one in 5 MINUTES!! I just got the latest issue of Sound and Vision, and the future does not look bright for blu-ray.
Whereas, Blu-Ray requires an entirely new and, thus, costly set up. Bummer. Blu-ray so has it over HD-DVD as far as its possibilities.
Maybe with tech advancements happening as often as they do, Blu-Ray (or a version similar to it) will supplant HD-DVD in the near future.
- Time
- Post link
Eventually, Blu-ray probably will adopt an advanced video codec, and may produce affordable 50GB discs. But for now, they are widely considered inferior to their cousins. In any case, the vast majority of people are looking at them today with the same wariness they cast towards DVD eight years ago. DVD Video's going away, or at least stepping down from the number one spot, there's top-down pressure for that. It's just a matter of when.
Scruffy's gonna die the way he lived.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: lord3vil
Very true. I never meant to imply that Lucas was saying anything close to the truth in the quote I mentioned. Based upon his rough story ideas and the way he invented elements on the spot, I can't see how he can argue that much of anything was outside of what he wanted besides some technical feats.
Originally posted by: Scruffy
So far, the superior specifications of Blu-ray have not been realized. All Blu-ray titles to date are 25GB, while HD DVD titles can be 30GB. (I don't know if 30GB discs make up the majority of HD DVD releases, but I suspect they do.) All Blu-ray titles to date have used MPEG-2, while HD DVD uses VC-1. HD DVD supports Dolby and DTS lossless audio, while the only mandatory lossless codec for Blu-Ray is PCM (yes, uncompressed)! And the current HD DVD players are half the price of Blu-ray players.
Eventually, Blu-ray probably will adopt an advanced video codec, and may produce affordable 50GB discs. But for now, they are widely considered inferior to their cousins. In any case, the vast majority of people are looking at them today with the same wariness they cast towards DVD eight years ago. DVD Video's going away, or at least stepping down from the number one spot, there's top-down pressure for that. It's just a matter of when.
Originally posted by: Tiptup
I just read an interview of his where he said the original Star Wars was only 25% of what he wanted.
This is most likely incorrect. Lucas likes to portray himself as a visionary by revision, so it is possibly true that the original Star Wars is only 25% of what he would have preferred it to be today. However, going by the interviews he gave back in the day, the original Star Wars came pretty close to what he actually wanted back then, even though it still wasn't quite 100% perhaps.
I just read an interview of his where he said the original Star Wars was only 25% of what he wanted.
This is most likely incorrect. Lucas likes to portray himself as a visionary by revision, so it is possibly true that the original Star Wars is only 25% of what he would have preferred it to be today. However, going by the interviews he gave back in the day, the original Star Wars came pretty close to what he actually wanted back then, even though it still wasn't quite 100% perhaps.
Very true. I never meant to imply that Lucas was saying anything close to the truth in the quote I mentioned. Based upon his rough story ideas and the way he invented elements on the spot, I can't see how he can argue that much of anything was outside of what he wanted besides some technical feats.
Originally posted by: Scruffy
So far, the superior specifications of Blu-ray have not been realized. All Blu-ray titles to date are 25GB, while HD DVD titles can be 30GB. (I don't know if 30GB discs make up the majority of HD DVD releases, but I suspect they do.) All Blu-ray titles to date have used MPEG-2, while HD DVD uses VC-1. HD DVD supports Dolby and DTS lossless audio, while the only mandatory lossless codec for Blu-Ray is PCM (yes, uncompressed)! And the current HD DVD players are half the price of Blu-ray players.
Eventually, Blu-ray probably will adopt an advanced video codec, and may produce affordable 50GB discs. But for now, they are widely considered inferior to their cousins. In any case, the vast majority of people are looking at them today with the same wariness they cast towards DVD eight years ago. DVD Video's going away, or at least stepping down from the number one spot, there's top-down pressure for that. It's just a matter of when.
Blu-ray releases, at the moment, may be inferior to HD-DVD releases, but that is far different from saying the actual Blu-ray format is "inferior" to the HD-DVD format. In any objective, technical comparison, Blu-ray discs are capable of superior performance compared to HD-DVDs if they are utilized correctly, and that is theoretically at the same price as well (assuming you account for the protective coating that makes BDs much more resiliant than CDs, DVDs or HD-DVDs). For instance, HD-DVD, when double-layered, offers a 30 GB disc, but BD achieves practically the same size (25 GB) with only a single-layered disc and almost double (50 GB) when it is double layered (and I'm almost certain that most of the current HD-DVD releases are on the 15 GB single layer discs using the superior VC-1 compression). Next, when looking at BDs, they are capable of faster reading/writing speeds over HD-DVDs as well with their superior transfer rate. There are a number of superior features that BDs have over HD-DVDs. It's not all as clear and easy to understand as some would think.
The main problem with both HD-DVD formats at the moment is the maturity of the technologies involved, and since Blu-ray is attempting to bring an even more advanced technology to the market, it is not only behind HD-DVD, but it is having more problems. This isn't difficult to understand. If BD is allowed to mature properly before the real HD-DVD format war begins, then it will easily deserve to be the winner. Currently, however, Blu-rays require entirely new production lines for one thing, while HD-DVDs are a cheap upgrade to the current DVD technology and were able to begin mass production far sooner. If you can only have so much production capacity for the first Blu-rays it makes sense to me that the initial releases in the format will be transferred cheaply and quickly to pump the BDs out faster. With time that should change. Otherwise, in terms of the end price, BD customers pay no more for their movies than HD-DVD customers since the publishers have decided to take smaller profits, and even with the Mpeg-2 codec, there is little difference in quality.
(Oh, and for those who do not know, audio and video codecs are merely a way to place data on a physical format, they do not speak to the superiority or inferiority of such formats in and of themselves.)
Lasty, the only reason the HD-DVD players are half the price of Blu-ray players is because they are being sold at a tremendous loss right now. Financially speaking, HD-DVD is certainly not in the best of positions either at the moment. Both formats are in a crappy state right now and the companies that are pushing all of this early support for one format or the other are justifiably facing major issues right now. That's not even mentioning the crappy copy protection that movie studios will want to start forcing on the industry that will eventually make many of the current HD-DVD and Blu-ray players useless. I simply like Blu-ray more because the technology in the discs is clearly better, but I don't intend to upgrade to HD televisions or an HD-DVD format until a lot of this crap is worked out. I might purchase a PS3 (if the Nintendo Wii doesn't meet all of my gaming needs) but even for a gaming system it’s in a mess and worthy of a lot of doubt at the moment. We'll see I suppose.
"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
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Very true. I never meant to imply that Lucas was saying anything close to the truth in the quote I mentioned. Based upon his rough story ideas and the way he invented elements on the spot, I can't see how he can argue that much of anything was outside of what he wanted besides some technical feats.
Originally posted by: lord3vil
This is most likely incorrect. Lucas likes to portray himself as a visionary by revision, so it is possibly true that the original Star Wars is only 25% of what he would have preferred it to be today. However, going by the interviews he gave back in the day, the original Star Wars came pretty close to what he actually wanted back then, even though it still wasn't quite 100% perhaps.
This is most likely incorrect. Lucas likes to portray himself as a visionary by revision, so it is possibly true that the original Star Wars is only 25% of what he would have preferred it to be today. However, going by the interviews he gave back in the day, the original Star Wars came pretty close to what he actually wanted back then, even though it still wasn't quite 100% perhaps.
Very true. I never meant to imply that Lucas was saying anything close to the truth in the quote I mentioned. Based upon his rough story ideas and the way he invented elements on the spot, I can't see how he can argue that much of anything was outside of what he wanted besides some technical feats.
Yeah, I understand what you mean and I didn't really intend to imply in any way that you were trying to present it as fact. That was just poor wording on my part.
Other than that I agree with what you say. The information available to us about what happened back then (through old articles, reviews, interviews, documentaries etc.) strongly suggests that there were only a few rough conceptual ideas and a rough story based on the template of myths and legends, combined with a considerable amount of improvising, revision, trial and error and creative impulse. There was no "grand vision" and Lucas simply changed and updated the draft continously as he got better ideas over time, and after it was all shot on film he was done with it for over ten years, until he decided it was time to find new ways to earn more money off the franchise. (Incidentally, this is about the same time it took him to transform completely from an artistic filmmaker to a cynical businessman.)
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: darkhelmet
Whereas, Blu-Ray requires an entirely new and, thus, costly set up.
That, and most of the test reviews I've read so far have been favorable towards hd-dvd and unfavorable towards blu-ray. Originally posted by: Mielr
I just got the latest issue of Sound and Vision, and the future does not look bright for blu-ray.
Yeah, that's sad. I read an article about how HD-DVD, while inferior to Blu-Ray in its tech specs, is MUCH more cost-effective for a production line change-over. A process is in place right now that can convert your standard DVD production line into an HD-DVD one in 5 MINUTES!! I just got the latest issue of Sound and Vision, and the future does not look bright for blu-ray.
Whereas, Blu-Ray requires an entirely new and, thus, costly set up.
- Time
- Post link
"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: Tiptup
[BluRay and HD-DVD] might end up existing side-by-side for a long time.
[BluRay and HD-DVD] might end up existing side-by-side for a long time.
I really think this could turn out to be a good thing, as it presents a greater likelihood that we (the consumers) end up with the best product in the long run. For all we know, this might even cause us to end up with the best of both worlds eventually, i.e. the best storage capacity combined with the best codecs. Multi-format players capable of handling CDs and DVDs containing video and audio data in numerous formats are already quite common, so at the moment at least it doesn't seem so unrealistic either.
- Time
- Post link
And I still can't understand why the movies that have been released on blu-ray aren't using the VC-1 codec. It's sure leaving a bad taste in the early adopters mouths.
You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.
Pissing off Rob since August 2007.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: lordjedi
And I still can't understand why the movies that have been released on blu-ray aren't using the VC-1 codec. It's sure leaving a bad taste in the early adopters mouths.
And I still can't understand why the movies that have been released on blu-ray aren't using the VC-1 codec. It's sure leaving a bad taste in the early adopters mouths.
Yeah, definitely. My guess would be that, since BD didn't have support for VC-1 as early as HD-DVD, a number of the earliest titles began production using Mpeg-2. Then, with the investment made, they didn't want to start over with VC-1. Mpeg-2 still looks respectable on a single-layer BD so long as your movies are under two hours and are properly mastered, but still not quite as good as VC-1. It's kind of retarded that they didn't implement something this important earlier.
"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: Scruffy
So far, the superior specifications of Blu-ray have not been realized. All Blu-ray titles to date are 25GB, while HD DVD titles can be 30GB. (I don't know if 30GB discs make up the majority of HD DVD releases, but I suspect they do.) All Blu-ray titles to date have used MPEG-2, while HD DVD uses VC-1. HD DVD supports Dolby and DTS lossless audio, while the only mandatory lossless codec for Blu-Ray is PCM (yes, uncompressed)! And the current HD DVD players are half the price of Blu-ray players.
Eventually, Blu-ray probably will adopt an advanced video codec, and may produce affordable 50GB discs. But for now, they are widely considered inferior to their cousins. In any case, the vast majority of people are looking at them today with the same wariness they cast towards DVD eight years ago. DVD Video's going away, or at least stepping down from the number one spot, there's top-down pressure for that. It's just a matter of when.
So far, the superior specifications of Blu-ray have not been realized. All Blu-ray titles to date are 25GB, while HD DVD titles can be 30GB. (I don't know if 30GB discs make up the majority of HD DVD releases, but I suspect they do.) All Blu-ray titles to date have used MPEG-2, while HD DVD uses VC-1. HD DVD supports Dolby and DTS lossless audio, while the only mandatory lossless codec for Blu-Ray is PCM (yes, uncompressed)! And the current HD DVD players are half the price of Blu-ray players.
Eventually, Blu-ray probably will adopt an advanced video codec, and may produce affordable 50GB discs. But for now, they are widely considered inferior to their cousins. In any case, the vast majority of people are looking at them today with the same wariness they cast towards DVD eight years ago. DVD Video's going away, or at least stepping down from the number one spot, there's top-down pressure for that. It's just a matter of when.
The problem is that Blu-Ray may not get the chance to produce the better discs, if HD-DVD wins in the meantime. Blu-Ray may be better, but they aren't taking advantage of it.
DVD is going to be around a good while longer, IMHO. As said before, there simply isn't enough reason for people to adopt a HD format. Besides a format war that has many people scared off, most people just don't have an HDTV, and therefore can't use a high def disc. Secondly, there isn't as much consumer reason to adopt high def formats. Laserdisc didn't replace VHS because to most people there wasn't a good reason to adopt a laserdisc. They were expensive, and had a better video and audio, but not that much better to compel people to buy them. So they remained in the realm of the audiophiles. DVD was a big leap forward. Complete with deleleted scenes, bonus features, alternate audio, commentary, much better sound, etc,people saw a huge difference and went to DVD. Now comes along high def DVDs. Most people don't have HDTVs, and aren't going to be getting them anytime soon. They aren't willing to buy another copy of their favorite film in less than 10 years, for not much difference. They already have extras, and the difference between HD and standard DVDs aren't enough in most people's minds to switch. They are simply satisfied with what they have and don't want anything new. "top-down" pressure isn't enough to force adoption.
An example of this is DVD-Audio. That was supposed to be much better than CD, and was supported enthusiasically by the music industry. But it failed miserably because nobody wanted it.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Number20
DVD is going to be around a good while longer, IMHO. As said before, there simply isn't enough reason for people to adopt a HD format. Besides a format war that has many people scared off, most people just don't have an HDTV, and therefore can't use a high def disc. Secondly, there isn't as much consumer reason to adopt high def formats. Laserdisc didn't replace VHS because to most people there wasn't a good reason to adopt a laserdisc. They were expensive, and had a better video and audio, but not that much better to compel people to buy them. So they remained in the realm of the audiophiles. DVD was a big leap forward. Complete with deleleted scenes, bonus features, alternate audio, commentary, much better sound, etc,people saw a huge difference and went to DVD. Now comes along high def DVDs. Most people don't have HDTVs, and aren't going to be getting them anytime soon. They aren't willing to buy another copy of their favorite film in less than 10 years, for not much difference. They already have extras, and the difference between HD and standard DVDs aren't enough in most people's minds to switch. They are simply satisfied with what they have and don't want anything new. "top-down" pressure isn't enough to force adoption.
An example of this is DVD-Audio. That was supposed to be much better than CD, and was supported enthusiasically by the music industry. But it failed miserably because nobody wanted it.
DVD is going to be around a good while longer, IMHO. As said before, there simply isn't enough reason for people to adopt a HD format. Besides a format war that has many people scared off, most people just don't have an HDTV, and therefore can't use a high def disc. Secondly, there isn't as much consumer reason to adopt high def formats. Laserdisc didn't replace VHS because to most people there wasn't a good reason to adopt a laserdisc. They were expensive, and had a better video and audio, but not that much better to compel people to buy them. So they remained in the realm of the audiophiles. DVD was a big leap forward. Complete with deleleted scenes, bonus features, alternate audio, commentary, much better sound, etc,people saw a huge difference and went to DVD. Now comes along high def DVDs. Most people don't have HDTVs, and aren't going to be getting them anytime soon. They aren't willing to buy another copy of their favorite film in less than 10 years, for not much difference. They already have extras, and the difference between HD and standard DVDs aren't enough in most people's minds to switch. They are simply satisfied with what they have and don't want anything new. "top-down" pressure isn't enough to force adoption.
An example of this is DVD-Audio. That was supposed to be much better than CD, and was supported enthusiasically by the music industry. But it failed miserably because nobody wanted it.
First, read my posts.
Secondly, Laserdisc didn't replace VHS because it wasn't really that great of a format. For one thing, and perhaps most importantly, it was a mammoth disc that people didn't like to handle and were easy to damage. After that, very little video could be fit on one side of a disc requiring people to flip them all the time and require the existence of multiple discs for one film. And lastly, consumers couldn't record their own content (which was extremely important to the success of VHS). Even considering all of that though, Laserdisc was a very popular format in Japan where "top-down" pressure helped ensure consumer awareness and cheap prices (in North America Laserdisc got no such treatment).
Thirdly, as I said in another thread, CD audio already produces sound at a level of quality where the human ear can't notice anything better for all practical purposes. HD resolution and less audio/video compression for movies (with the larger data capacity) make both HD-DVD and BD a very noticeable leap forward in quality. With "top down" pressure that quality product shouldn't be unsuccessful.
"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