Sign In

The level of acceptability for an "O-OT"

Author
Time
I was watching my DVD of "Superman: The Movie" today to gear up for "Superman Returns," enjoying the restored print and vintage special effects and it occured to me that even if the original negatives of the Star Wars Trilogy are permanently altered with Special Edition scenes, using the interpositives and separation masters Robert Harris was talking about, in conjunction with the usable scenes from the original negative, would make a full restoration possible. What I was thinking about at the time was the fact that while Superman:The Movie's special effects have been restored and color corrected, they are still the original elements - that's to me what counts the most - so to have the original elements from say, the Hoth Battle, just re-composited without matte lines, is to me anyway, part of the acceptable restoration process. Any thoughts on this one?
"I turned it off! I don't wanna talk to her!"
Author
Time
Superman is a lousy comparison. That DVD is not the original cut (it's 8 minutes longer) and it features a completely new (and inappropriate) 5.1 mix which rarely sounds like the original mix.

It is a glorious visual restoration though. I'm hoping when the 14 disc box set comes out the original cut and mix are included with that stunning picture.

And yes, using the original elements to re-composite a scene is fine. It's not changing a thing.

Neil

Well at least the reversed surround channels have been addressed.

Author
Time
My worry is that bringing up the "restoration" word is sort of playing straight into their argument. They're using the 'it's too spendy to restore' these films excuse, and so talking about restoration is like throwing a fat-change up down the middle. I'd rather argue for a simple NEW SCAN. You don't have to restore, you don't have to clean up every last frame of dirt or whatever--just get more detail in there. Scan the film elements, do a quick pass, and output that to DVD. Much easier than all the cleaning and frame by frame, and certainly a lot less expensive. Plus it runs around the end of their argument about money and time constraints.

The Best Show You've Never Heard
Author
Time
I'm in perfect agreement with The Bizzle. Although a pristine transfer looks nice, I'd be happy for something highly presentable. And I'm still afraid how many of them would confuse "restoration" with "alteration." Just a new transfer from the original elements would be nice... a lot nicer than a '93 transfer with a cut and paste title crawl.

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.

Author
Time
I just want a godamn motherf-ing dvd made with the same effort as say, Firefox or Cheech and Chong's Nice Dreams!
Author
Time
Originally posted by: Guy Caballero
I just want a godamn motherf-ing dvd made with the same effort as say, Firefox or Cheech and Chong's Nice Dreams!


lol

I agree with the "new scan," zero restoration approach. DVD is a digital format and all about the resolution. Even with dirt and blurr, you can pick up a lot more detail if you start with a high resolution scan to begin with.

"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
The Superman DVD always bugged me because of the extra footage. There's too much "special" this and that going on with classic movies on DVD and is one of the shortcomings of the format. I don't mind an extra release for the special thingy but when it replaces the original, it becomes too revisionist for my taste. Even the Star Trek: The Motion Picture special edition annoys me, though it did tighten up the editing but screwed up the score in some places. With all this "revisionism" I'm beginning to feel like a replicant and wonder if I actually saw any of these original films at all.
Author
Time
I just want a godamn motherf-ing dvd made with the same effort as say, Firefox or Cheech and Chong's Nice Dreams!


Yeah man.
Author
Time
Firefox was sweet. Never seen the full aspect ratio of that film until the DVD. It really made a difference with the flying and cockpit scenes.

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>

Author
Time
Color correction and removing of Mat-lines is as far as I am willing to go. In fact, I encourage those changes.

But everything else is totally unacceptable.
"I am altering the movies. Pray I don't alter them any further." -Darth Lucas
Author
Time
Digital recompositing yes, color "correction" no.
Author
Time
Originally posted by: THX
Digital recompositing yes, color "correction" no.

Every movie ever released to home video has been color corrected. It's part of the telecine process. If it wasn't done, things would get really ugly really fast.

Neil

Well at least the reversed surround channels have been addressed.

Author
Time
Yes, but usually it's done to make the video resemble the film color more closely, unlike the (ugh) 2004 DVDs - that's what I don't want.
Author
Time
Call me a Lucas fanboy (actually, please don't), but I just have trouble seeing color mistakes in the '04 release! I've never seen anything wrong with it (besides Hayden's face, Ian's face, CG crap, you know, the obvious stuff like 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.

Author
Time
Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
Call me a Lucas fanboy (actually, please don't), but I just have trouble seeing color mistakes in the '04 release! I've never seen anything wrong with it (besides Hayden's face, Ian's face, CG crap, you know, the obvious stuff like that!).


Have you ever seen the OOT in theaters or on video for that matter? Where do we start?
Author
Time
With examples, most likely...

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.

Author
Time
Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
Call me a Lucas fanboy (actually, please don't), but I just have trouble seeing color mistakes in the '04 release! I've never seen anything wrong with it (besides Hayden's face, Ian's face, CG crap, you know, the obvious stuff like that!).

What color are the rebel troop's shirts? Blue or gray?

Also, look at the differences in the colors between shots here and here. The first one is obviously color while the second looks almost black and white. There is no consistency.

And this is all in the first 5 minutes of the movie!

Neil

Well at least the reversed surround channels have been addressed.

Author
Time
So it's basically a lack of consistency? (I'm actually partially color blind, so that's probably why it doesn't make much difference to me, although I did notice the difference in the shots you pointed out)

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.

Author
Time
Also if you compair the colour of the death star walls with the old and new versions, you can see quite a difference.
Author
Time
one thing I've noticed on the dvd of Star wars is, in a lot of shots, everyone seems to have a red face, like the modern-age William Shatner, and reddish hair. Also explosions look white instead of yellow or orange.
Author
Time
You're a Lucas fanboy, Gaff.

No, really, though: it's basically massively oversaturated and much more blue than the original color.
Author
Time
I hate you, I hate you,I hate you,I hate you,I hate you,I hate you,I hate you,I hate you,I hate you,I hate you,I hate you,I hate you!

Teh prquels suxOrs!

I am not a fanboy...

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.

Author
Time
Okay you convinced me. A real fanboy couldn't spell "teh prquels suxOrs".
Author
Time
Good. Just so we're clear on the matter. ^_^

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.

Author
Time
If you have the OOT on video as u saw it in 77-83 then you can forget buying the new dvds. Thats what i would do becouse i dont want lucus to have my money.

May the force be wth you .........