- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
War does not make one great.
The "original crawl" on the new DVD is NOT the original crawl! Screenshot inside! — Page 2
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: zombie84
Okay just saw the trailer for the OOT DVD. They showed a clip of the new DVD "original crawl". I was looking to see if it was truely the original crawl, if it was formatted correctly. Mysetriously, the clip on the trailer cuts off just as it is about the get to the first line formatted, which is the third line in. Uh oh. What are they hiding?
Then I took a closer look at the screenshot. "The Star Wars logo looks funny--shouldn't it have receeded by now??"
Sure enough, i took a look at the Empire of Dreams original crawl footage--it is not the same.
THE UPCOMING OOT DVD CRAWL IS JUST A PHOTOSHOPED VERSION OF THE EPISODE IV CRAWL.
And, 1. how do you know the empire of dreams has the original version? 2. How do you know that there weren't 3 slightly differently formatted crawls for the 3 theatrical versions? Did you know that when creating the opening crawl it would have been composited together? Therefore isn't it reasonable to assume that they would do this composite each time they made a theatrical master? And as they had to make 3 different masters, there could be 3 slightly different versions? And so in doing so isn't it reasonable to think that in some instances the SW logo will be more faded faster then in other instances?Okay just saw the trailer for the OOT DVD. They showed a clip of the new DVD "original crawl". I was looking to see if it was truely the original crawl, if it was formatted correctly. Mysetriously, the clip on the trailer cuts off just as it is about the get to the first line formatted, which is the third line in. Uh oh. What are they hiding?
Then I took a closer look at the screenshot. "The Star Wars logo looks funny--shouldn't it have receeded by now??"
Sure enough, i took a look at the Empire of Dreams original crawl footage--it is not the same.
THE UPCOMING OOT DVD CRAWL IS JUST A PHOTOSHOPED VERSION OF THE EPISODE IV CRAWL.
There is no solid evidence that this is a recreated crawl. Also the percieved difference could be due a simple difference in cropping (though by looking at the stars it does appear this is not the case)
.
Stop jumping to early conclusions and complaining about every grain.
<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!
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: zombie84
Also note the difference in stars. The EOD ones only have the brightest available. The 1993 and home video versions had the image artificially brightened and as such the stars are highly visible. The dvd trailer footage has the same star background as the ANH 1993 crawl. This, plus the colour difference (the crawl was more of an orange-yellow than a gold, as can be seen from the EOD clip) plus the differences in logo recession show that this is indeed a falsified original crawl.
So technically it is false advertising to claim this is the unaltered 1977 theatrical version. Because its not.
I completely disagree, the shot continues seamlessly into the first space shot of the movie. The ANH crawl was composited onto the same star background as the pre-ANH crawl, this is plainly obvious. Also note the difference in stars. The EOD ones only have the brightest available. The 1993 and home video versions had the image artificially brightened and as such the stars are highly visible. The dvd trailer footage has the same star background as the ANH 1993 crawl. This, plus the colour difference (the crawl was more of an orange-yellow than a gold, as can be seen from the EOD clip) plus the differences in logo recession show that this is indeed a falsified original crawl.
So technically it is false advertising to claim this is the unaltered 1977 theatrical version. Because its not.
<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!
- Time
- Post link
To me, it looks more like the EoD screenshot than the new trailer screenshot.
4 - 5 - 3 - 1 - 6 - 2
Discuss…
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: boris
No offense, but you don't know what the hell you're talking about. The Star Wars logo in '77 wasn't "more faded faster" in one release as opposed to others. The 3 theatrical versions were exactly the same in terms of video.
And we're not talking about a "simple difference in cropping".
Therefore isn't it reasonable to assume that they would do this composite each time they made a theatrical master?
Originally posted by: zombie84
Okay just saw the trailer for the OOT DVD. They showed a clip of the new DVD "original crawl". I was looking to see if it was truely the original crawl, if it was formatted correctly. Mysetriously, the clip on the trailer cuts off just as it is about the get to the first line formatted, which is the third line in. Uh oh. What are they hiding?
Then I took a closer look at the screenshot. "The Star Wars logo looks funny--shouldn't it have receeded by now??"
Sure enough, i took a look at the Empire of Dreams original crawl footage--it is not the same.
THE UPCOMING OOT DVD CRAWL IS JUST A PHOTOSHOPED VERSION OF THE EPISODE IV CRAWL. And, 1. how do you know the empire of dreams has the original version? 2. How do you know that there weren't 3 slightly differently formatted crawls for the 3 theatrical versions? Did you know that when creating the opening crawl it would have been composited together? Therefore isn't it reasonable to assume that they would do this composite each time they made a theatrical master? And as they had to make 3 different masters, there could be 3 slightly different versions? And so in doing so isn't it reasonable to think that in some instances the SW logo will be more faded faster then in other instances?
There is no solid evidence that this is a recreated crawl. Also the percieved difference could be due a simple difference in cropping (though by looking at the stars it does appear this is not the case)
.
Stop jumping to early conclusions and complaining about every grain.
Okay just saw the trailer for the OOT DVD. They showed a clip of the new DVD "original crawl". I was looking to see if it was truely the original crawl, if it was formatted correctly. Mysetriously, the clip on the trailer cuts off just as it is about the get to the first line formatted, which is the third line in. Uh oh. What are they hiding?
Then I took a closer look at the screenshot. "The Star Wars logo looks funny--shouldn't it have receeded by now??"
Sure enough, i took a look at the Empire of Dreams original crawl footage--it is not the same.
THE UPCOMING OOT DVD CRAWL IS JUST A PHOTOSHOPED VERSION OF THE EPISODE IV CRAWL. And, 1. how do you know the empire of dreams has the original version? 2. How do you know that there weren't 3 slightly differently formatted crawls for the 3 theatrical versions? Did you know that when creating the opening crawl it would have been composited together? Therefore isn't it reasonable to assume that they would do this composite each time they made a theatrical master? And as they had to make 3 different masters, there could be 3 slightly different versions? And so in doing so isn't it reasonable to think that in some instances the SW logo will be more faded faster then in other instances?
There is no solid evidence that this is a recreated crawl. Also the percieved difference could be due a simple difference in cropping (though by looking at the stars it does appear this is not the case)
.
Stop jumping to early conclusions and complaining about every grain.
No offense, but you don't know what the hell you're talking about. The Star Wars logo in '77 wasn't "more faded faster" in one release as opposed to others. The 3 theatrical versions were exactly the same in terms of video.
And we're not talking about a "simple difference in cropping".
Therefore isn't it reasonable to assume that they would do this composite each time they made a theatrical master?
Absolutely not. You really shouldn't assume...
- Time
- Post link
The text was laid on the floor, and the camera was moved lengthwise from top to bottom.
The only real reason for a digital crawl is because it's digital, and easier than going into the vaults. Besides, with no new SW DVD labels to photoshop, might as well use that already-bought photoshop program to make this.
"1. how do you know the empire of dreams has the original version? 2. How do you know that there weren't 3 slightly differently formatted crawls for the 3 theatrical versions?"
Now you're just making shit up. Until you know otherwise, your musings are mute.
"The ANH crawl was composited onto the same star background as the pre-ANH crawl, this is plainly obvious. "
After every single other element is clearly changed, you assume the starfield is precisely the same one? That's funny.
<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>
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
And just think about the poor guy in the photo. For years he's been telling his friends, his family, random people he meets on the street, that he worked on Star Wars - 'You know the writing at the start? That was me!! and this is how we did it...'
Well not anymore - some intern with a basic knowledge of Photoshop holds the honor now.
War does not make one great.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
And just think about the poor guy in the photo. For years he's been telling his friends, his family, random people he meets on the street, that he worked on Star Wars - 'You know the writing at the start? That was me!! and this is how we did it...'
Well not anymore - some intern with a basic knowledge of Photoshop holds the honor now.
And just think about the poor guy in the photo. For years he's been telling his friends, his family, random people he meets on the street, that he worked on Star Wars - 'You know the writing at the start? That was me!! and this is how we did it...'
Well not anymore - some intern with a basic knowledge of Photoshop holds the honor now.
Richard Edlund
Yeah, all these early ILM'ers get the shaft. And for the record, the pic is of the rough cut crawl and not the original theatrical crawl, but that doesn't matter.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: zombie84
Boris, if they were going to use the actual 1977 crawl ie from the actual archives, then they would obviously use the EOD footage since it is already transfered and they obviously do not want to spend any money on this release. The trailer clip is clearly not the same as the EOD one.
The thing to remember is this: it doesn't matter one iota what they show in the preview trailer. Nowhere does it say that the footage contained in that trailer is the same exact footage that is going to be in the September DVDs. Who's to say they didn't make a custom edit showing the text crawl as the SW logo is still on-screen, to compress more into less time for the trailer? And who's to say they didn't fabricate a text crawl just for this promotional trailer?Boris, if they were going to use the actual 1977 crawl ie from the actual archives, then they would obviously use the EOD footage since it is already transfered and they obviously do not want to spend any money on this release. The trailer clip is clearly not the same as the EOD one.
Boris is right about one thing, at least. We can't jump to any conclusions until we've seen the actual DVDs ourselves.
--SKot
Projects:
Return Of The Ewok and Other Short Films (with OCPmovie) [COMPLETED]
Preserving the…cringe…Star Wars Holiday Special [COMPLETED]
The Star Wars TV Commercials Project [DORMANT]
Felix the Cat 1919-1930 early film shorts preservation [ONGOING]
Lights Out! (lost TV anthology shows) [ONGOING]
Iznogoud (1995 animated series) English audio preservation [ONGOING]
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: SKot
Boris is right about one thing, at least. We can't jump to any conclusions until we've seen the actual DVDs ourselves.
--SKot
Originally posted by: zombie84
Boris, if they were going to use the actual 1977 crawl ie from the actual archives, then they would obviously use the EOD footage since it is already transfered and they obviously do not want to spend any money on this release. The trailer clip is clearly not the same as the EOD one.
The thing to remember is this: it doesn't matter one iota what they show in the preview trailer. Nowhere does it say that the footage contained in that trailer is the same exact footage that is going to be in the September DVDs. Who's to say they didn't make a custom edit showing the text crawl as the SW logo is still on-screen, to compress more into less time for the trailer? And who's to say they didn't fabricate a text crawl just for this promotional trailer?Boris, if they were going to use the actual 1977 crawl ie from the actual archives, then they would obviously use the EOD footage since it is already transfered and they obviously do not want to spend any money on this release. The trailer clip is clearly not the same as the EOD one.
Boris is right about one thing, at least. We can't jump to any conclusions until we've seen the actual DVDs ourselves.
--SKot
True it may not be the final version but the trailer seems to indicate "THIS IS THE NEW/OLD CRAWL!"
I don't see any evidence that there is some invisible, custom edit (even more illogical since the point of showing the footage is to prove that its the original unaltered version) and to me this just seems like wishful thinking.
Not saying its impossible, but right now i will say its improbable.
- Time
- Post link
Maybe we're wrong. And I hope we are, because this is really the main determining factor for me whether or not to buy this. There are others, obviously, but even if it's not anamorphic, and even if the picture isn't wonderful... well, I was still considering buying it. But this is flat-out deception, and I refuse to pay money to a company that so obviously lies to its consumers.
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
My theory is revised--these appear to not be a photoshopped version of the ANH crawl, but a totally re-created version!
First, let me explain. I said before that the coloring of the text and placement of the logo was a dead giveaway--but now i realise it wasn't a giveaway that it was an altered 1981 crawl. It was a giveaway that it is a totally new re-created crawl. Look at these screenshots. The first is the real 1977 crawl.
Okay, next is the DVD crawl from the trailer:
Right, same as before--the main logo should have dissapeared by now but its there clear as day, indicating these are not the same crawls (which is re-inforced by the differences in starfields and text colouring).
But here is where it gets interesting--the 1981 had the logo (pretty much) dissapear before the text came as well, just like the 1977 crawl did. Here is the 1981 crawl from the SE dvd:
You can see in the above that the logo is just barely there--this cap is taken mid-fade. By the time "A New Hope" comes up it is long gone:
See, logo is gone.
So then what is the deal with the DVD crawl? Its not the 1977 crawl but it can't be the 1981 crawl with the episode info erased--this would leave a huge dead space as well. The only way for the crawl shown on the trailer to be possible is if they erased the episode info, rotoscoped each and every letter and word and moved the whole thing closer together. This would be quite the effort to do, and totally unnecessary.
I realise now the reason that the 1977 Empire of Dreams footage was not used was because the difference in quality and starfields would be too troublesome to blend into the 1993 Laserdisk footage. But rotoscoping the 1993 crawl would be even more difficult.
But i figured it out. How do you think the crawls were created for the Prequels? Denis Muren himself did it on his dinky home laptop. Its that easy.
The process goes like this:
-take still of starfield backdrop.
-type text into pre-formatted parameters
-composite
Done. They already figured out what the font is. They already figured out the speed, angle of view and duration. All you have to do is type in the text.
And this, i am positive is what was done. There is blank frame of just the starfield that can be used to make a backdrop. Then they filled in the text. So why is the logo almost overlapping the text? Because they had the speed programmed for the prequel/SE format of crawl, which includes the episode infor--thus, they had to reprogram the speed and compositing of the text. And they were imperfect in their measurements--perhaps they had no reference and just did it by eye, sort of "yeah that looks about right--star wars logo comes in then the text does."
So there it is. If they got the position and speed wrong its probably safe to say that they likely got the original formatting of the text wrong as well and just copied what was on the 1993 laserdisk (ie the 1981 formatting).
- 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
Who can trust anything Lucas/Lucasfilm says anymore?
- Time
- Post link
Who can trust anything Lucas/Lucasfilm says anymore?
Probably no one, but what they have been saying of late is also self-contradictory and doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense.
“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
Also keep in mind that that yellow text in the trailer is about the same color as the text on the DC LD.
My Projects:
[Holiday Special Hybrid DVD v2]
[X0 Project]
[Backstroke of the West DVD]
[ROTS Theatrical DVD]
- Time
- Post link
The clip is already edited for duration to show the logo and text. They do this with a speed ramp. The logo whips on by and then the text soars on up and finally at the last second the clip slows to normal speed to make it clear that it is the text sans Episode IV. Why would they do a fake dissolve if they already did a speed-ramp? If they wanted to get rid of that extra two seconds as you seem to imply they merely had to extend the speed ramp for about 0.0025 seconds. Like four frames of video.
Therefore the idea of them edited the clip to dissolve between the logo and text to show that it is sans Episode IV is illogical--they already edited it with a speed-ramp.
- Time
- Post link
My Projects:
[Holiday Special Hybrid DVD v2]
[X0 Project]
[Backstroke of the West DVD]
[ROTS Theatrical DVD]
- Time
- Post link
Again possible but to me i don't really see this as too likely. Hopefully it is though.
- Time
- Post link
-George Lucas
- Time
- Post link
<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>
- Time
- Post link
Han: Hey Lando! You kept your promise, right? Not a scratch?
Lando: Well, what’s left of her isn’t scratched. All the scratched parts got knocked off along the way.
Han (exasperated): Knocked off?!