Alexrd

Jetrell Fo said:

There has already been some preliminary discussion on this...

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Star-Wars-PT-DTS-CD-ROMs-UPDATE-26-SEP-2012/topic/14273/

Preserving the Theatrical versions of these movies would help keep a reference standard for future projects.

:)

I agree, although as far as TPM goes, my purpose was more about doing colour correction of the Blu-ray rather than a full preservation (I guess the title is a bit misleading). I wouldn't mind helping someone who plans to do one, though.

Does anyone know what's the best broadcast version of Attack of the Clones available?

Thanks in advance.

Brooks said:

Was the 3D theatrical truer to the original or the blu ray (besides the 3d of course)?

It was the Blu-ray version, DNR and all. Maybe the DNR was applied specifically for the 3D conversion? It's the only explanation I can think of.

none said:

Don't believe any projects following your criteria have taken place in OT.com.  A fan edit of AotC may have done a color correction, asking around at fanedit.org would be a place to start.

I'll check there, thanks.

You_Too said:

I don't really know what would be considered "correct" for TPM. Probably if someone had a bootleg straight from a theatrical print we'd know how it should really look. (Not talking about the cam-recorded versions)

In the DVD/HD broadcast there's the pink tint over the whole thing, not to mention the over-sharpened edge ringing.

In AOTC on blu-ray though, the hue has been shifted on each color separately, it seems. The only cure for that would be to use selective color or something similar and match them back to the HD broadcast.

Or are you talking about a scene by scene RGB balancing correction? (Like, not following a reference.)

I was thinking of using the DVD (or in this case the HD broadcast) as a reference, but from what you said, it seems to be a huge amount of work if I had to go through selective colour. RGB balancing might not give that much accurancy.

As for TPM, although limited, there are a good amount of screenshots from the film without any DNR or other filters applied, so I would have to go by that.

pittrek said:

TPM - there is a pretty good looking DVD from a PAL TV broadcast. But I would too LOVE if somebody would do proper preservations of the prequels too

I don't have much time right now, that's why I was asking if anyone was already doing it. But I think I could start doing one in a couple of months.

none said:

Alexrd wrote: As for AotC, it has that horrid green tint all over the movie and I'm not sure what can be done about it or how.

I believe people have identify it as the 'Teal' shift:

Yes, that would be the proper way to call it. Is there any solution?

P.S: Reading that thread I was reminded of the scene swap at the end of Yoda's duel. Has anyone tried to put the sequence in the correct order to see if there were any audio continuity issues?

Is anyone doing any TPM and/or AotC Blu-ray colour correction? TPM doesn’t need that much work, although I found some shots that need some, like the Jedi Temple exterior:

This is a picture I found from what I believe to be the original version (not the DVD):

This is the Blu-ray version:

And this is my quick attempt at a colour corrected version:

As for AotC, it has that horrid green tint all over the movie and I’m not sure what can be done about it or how.

none said:

Alexrd wrote: That doesn't necessarily contradict what he said. Either with puppet or digital Yoda, they were going to need Frank Oz.

Yes history shows they have kept his voice.  Would you now consider his TPM puppetry work as pre-viz?

No. But I think they said that (on the making of book) after they had decided to go with the puppet. Either way, it doesn't mean they hadn't considered a digital version. After all, they did use it on a scene on the original version of the movie.

Harmy said:

Well, being one of those people, I can assure you if he was to make those films, he wouldn't be making them for me or others like me, he'd be making them for you and others like you, so that argument doesn't stand IMO.

I believe it does. He would be making it to people who like, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't get bashed for it. I mean, Red Tails already showed that (and again, I'm not talking about film critics).

Well, IMO a good critic not only says that something is bad but also looks for a reason why it's bad and if the reason is the personality of the creator, then the critics are doing their job, if they point it out.

If criticizing the personality of the creator implies an offense, I disagree.

It seems to me that you get this impression because you don't have all the information, or refuse to acknowledge it and therefore people criticizing Lucas seem like they base it on "assumptions" where in reality, they simply have more information than you do. I recommend reading The Secret History of SW.

I've read that for some time. I don't refuse to acknoledge that people have their reasons to criticize the man, but what I argue is that saying he was referring to critics when he said "Why would I make any more, when everybody yells at you all the time and says what a terrible person you are?" is an assumption. Because it is. There is nothing there that says he's referring to critics. You may think so, but that's only an assumption.

Harmy said:

Why? Because, and I'll be repeating myself here, if so, then there is no logical connection to making more SW films.

Why make films to people who say that I'm a terrible person? It seems to be a logical way of thinking to me. (not that I agree with it, though)

Also there is a difference between the critics (and I use the term in the broad sense of anyone making a critique publicly) making an intentionally offensive comments and GL taking offence at their comments, when they dare point out all the reasons why his new films are bad films

Indeed there is a difference. Critics wo don't like their movies are criticizing the movies, or his job, not him as a person (and if they do that, then they are not doing their job). And that's what he's saying.

and then putting it together with fans' online statements motivated by his constant lies and active efforts to change history, and making this comment.

Motivated by his lies, or by their personal tastes and assumptions? Because there are these people too, and by watching many online comments, that's what I see the most.

In the end, all we have is what he said in the article: "people who say what a terrible person he is". I see no connection to film critics (those whom he doesn't care about).

Harmy said:

Well, maybe no in so many words but have you seen the RLM prequel reviews? And there were others. The point is that if he says that he's not going to make any more SW films, because everybody yells at him all the time and says what a terrible person he is, then if he isn't speaking about people who criticized his films, there is no logical connection there. In other words if he is not speaking about people who criticized his films, he's just rambling incoherently...

Why? Can't he be speaking about people in the internet who can't offend him enough? Or people who went to her daughters' twitter or facebook account to offend her father (and forcing her to shut down the account)? It's seems to be a more logical assumption than to say "he's talking about critics". I don't recall any film critic offending him, so...

zombie84 said:

I really don't know why this is being debated still. There were plenty of quotes and arguments presented in the previous page that shows, yes, Lucas does feel the sting of critics sometimes, but he looks at it as being part of the job so tries not to focus too much on it. But he still is affected by criticism. I don't know how you could take a quote where Lucas flat out says "everyone criticizes the movies I make so now I'm not going to make any more" and somehow try to paint a picture of a man stoically ignorant to critics.

I never said he was ignorant to critics, I said he doesn't give them importance (doesn't care).

What Lucas said was:

“Why would I make any more,” Lucas says of the “Star Wars” movies, “when everybody yells at you all the time and says what a terrible person you are?”

Now, how can you say that he's talking about critics? I don't recall critics attacking him as a person and saying what a terrible person he is. Right? But feel free to show me otherwise. I'm not the one with the burden of proof.

none said:

The Making of Star Wars Episode 1 The Phantom Menace

pg. 96

"Neither Lucas nor McCallum had ever considered attempting to reintroduce the character of Yoda without Frank Oz as the man behind the puppet.  "I'd been speaking to Frank about it off and on for two or three years before we did the movie," McCallum said.  "There was just no way we were going to do it without him.  We fit out schedule around his.  He'd just finished a movie, and he fit us in for two days between t he completion of his movie and the start of his press conferences.  Two days and  he was gone.  But it was essential to have him there.  Yoda would not be Yoda without Frank Oz."

 

That doesn't necessarily contradict what he said. Either with puppet or digital Yoda, they were going to need Frank Oz.

georgec said:

You haven't proven anything, other than you enjoy trying to argue against criticism of Lucas, who has time and time again said that critics hate Star Wars. Just because Lucas doesn't explicitly use the term "critics" doesn't mean that he's not referring to them.

And because he doesn't use the term critics, doesn't mean he's referring to them. Besides, when did the critics said that Lucas is a terrible person?

I've refuted your silly arguments,

No, you haven't.

Honestly, step away from the computer. You have a cute way of cutting up my posts and only responding to the parts you can misinterpret and skew with some effort. By misrepresenting my words cutting out parts of sentences, it shows you can't respond to the whole post. Only to select phrases that lose context when you edit them.

No, I've cut one of your posts because I only wanted to adress your comments about me. But feel free to point out where did I misinterpret your posts.

Counter accusing me of things I say about you, such as you being childish, is the only thing you can do. In reality it actually shows your lack of argument and your irrationality. It's ironic, actually.

If that was the only thing you read on my posts, then it only shows you are the only one ignoring what I wrote.

A child uses the "No, you are!" argument. Ergo...

Ergo nothing. When did I use anything close to "no, you are"? But you, on the other hand,  did use strawman and logical fallacies on your arguments.

This site is full of people who see Lucas for who he is - a greedy, dishonest, arrogant businessman. Yet, you've been obsessed with my posts for months now and constantly thread crap.

Months? I've quoted you yesterday and I'm certainly not obsessed with anyone.

Your only method is to try and say what Lucas really meant with his words, or what he was really thinking when he said them. It's the very definition of a straw man argument, the one you like to accuse others of using.

Are you kidding? I never used that method anywhere, but as I've pointed out earlier, you did:

georgec said:

Saying he doesn't care about critics doesn't mean he actually doesn't care.

And now you're accusing me of doing that? There is no need to lie. The posts are here for everyone to see.

I guess you're okay with people saying Lucas raped their childhood,

You guessed wrong. And by the way, what made you guess that?

but when people point out the quite obvious insecurity complex of Lucas you start to whine and make baseless attempts to "refute" well-documented information.

What well documented information? You claimed that when Lucas says he doesn't care about critics, he doesn't mean it. Do you have a source, then? Because there are many sources proving that he doesn't care. Some of them already shown on this thread. But you didn't refute my argument with a source. I've asked you who are you to decide what he means or doesn't with what he says. Then, you used a fallacy by asking if I was the one who decides that. Since you are the one with the burden of proof, I'm still waiting for it. All you've been giving was a mindless rant about how I'm obsessed about you, how I use fallacies (which I'm still waiting for a proof), and some ad hominem by calling me "mental" and "Lucas apologist".

Even within this thread many others have agreed on Lucas' whiny attitude about people not appreciating him.

Not appreciating him doesn't mean offending him.

You focus on my post because you have an unhealthy, irrational obsession.

No. if you had used valid arguments from the start we wouldn't be having this discussion. And you making stuff up (like you're doing) doesn't help either.

Go read zombie's website and inform yourself before trying to act like a hardass on here.

You are the one who needs to inform. You make claims which have been refuted and now your trying to argue with strawman and false dilemmas. Reply back with facts and proof of your claims, if you can. Otherwise, admit that you're wrong.

Harmy said:

What else do you think it's about then?

As he says, people who say what a terrible person he is. Or people who offend him as a person. Offense is not constructive criticism, and it definitely has nothing to do with film critics.

Harmy said:

Exactly, it's obvious georgec was talking about the critics of the prequels and that interview zombie cited came to my mind almost instantly and I believe that what georgec says is right, George did basically say in the NYT interview that he wouldn't make any more STAR WARS movies, because people were criticising the prequels.

No, and I'll post the full quote:

“Why would I make any more,” Lucas says of the “Star Wars” movies, “when everybody yells at you all the time and says what a terrible person you are?”

It has nothing to do with film critics.

Harmy said:

To me, it seems like a very childish attitude to come to a forum where the vast majority of people don't like something or someone and make it your personal crusade to retort whenever someone says something against the thing/person people don't like there.

That doesn't apply to me. I don't make personal crusades against anyone, but I do criticize and question when people make baseless rants and assumptions. Specially when we are at a time where some members here seem to care about what other people think about this community and want to be taken seriously. Attitudes like the ones shown by georgec don't help at all and only help loosing credibility and gaining a bad reputation.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure you're here because you want the original version of SW released, I just find it amusing how you always seem to pop up every time someone says something bad against the prequels.

But I don't do that. If you go back to my original post, that can be easily proven:

Alexrd said:

georgec said:

Guy is delusional beyond comprehension.

http://movies.msn.com/paralleluniverse/george-lucas-talks-star-wars-critics/story/feature/

Sure, George. Mean critics killed your future movies. It had nothing to do with your inflated ego, greed, and arrogance.

When did he ever mentioned critics? It's more like an assumption made by the article about TNYT's one.

Gossip article.

georgec said:

Alexrd said:

Because you are the one who decides what Lucas means with what he says, right?

And you're the one who decides?

No, I never claimed that.

So you think George always says the truth? Like how he's changed his story multiple times about why he "can't" restore the UOT? And you're saying there's never been a difference between what he says/does?

You should give up your childhood ideal of him being the benevolent creator of Star Wars. He is a shrewd businessman.

Stop using straw men, please. It only shows your big lack of arguments and a very childish attitude.

georgec said:

It's funny that Lucas apologists like Alexrd

So, now that you can't refute my arguments, you call me a "Lucas apologist".

Alexrd will be here soon to post more straw man arguments because he has an unhealthy obsession with doing so

No, but the same can be said about you, as your posts have proven.

georgec said:

Saying he doesn't care about critics doesn't mean he actually doesn't care. It's called downplaying the issue.

Because you are the one who decides what Lucas means with what he says, right?

I did provide a source to an article. That's good enough. I'm not going to transcribe it here or paraphrase it for you. That you demand I do something I've already done does make me question your aptitude.

No, the article is not a source. The article makes a baseless assumption. Otherwise it would have shown a quote with the source.

georgec said:

Are you mental?

Ad hominem. Very mature...

George has been vocal about critics hurting his feelings for a long, long time. There is no assumption.

Care to show a source? No need, as none's post points out, he doesn't care.

Quit trying to start arguments (when you have no argument) and inform yourself.

You are you to say anything about arguments, when you start posts with "are you mental"?

May he rest in peace.

georgec said:

Guy is delusional beyond comprehension.

http://movies.msn.com/paralleluniverse/george-lucas-talks-star-wars-critics/story/feature/

Sure, George. Mean critics killed your future movies. It had nothing to do with your inflated ego, greed, and arrogance.

When did he ever mentioned critics? It's more like an assumption made by the article about TNYT's one.

Gossip article.

CatBus said:

If something like that were done, you would have to simplify the message to the only thing everyone agrees on: just release the originals.

If you complicate the message with things like not liking prequels & changes, it becomes subjective and easily dismissed, and it doesn't even truthfully represent the views of all fans.

Exactly.

doubleofive said:

Perhaps you're not familiar with io9?

 

Thankfully I'm not. ;-)

An article complaining about a kids featurette being a kids featurette?! That "journalist" sure has a problem with other people tastes by calling everyone who considers themselves part of the audience,"little kids".

Can't get more ridiculous than that...

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

Alexrd said:

greenpenguino said:

Alexrd said:

eiyosus said:

Oh man, when they started ranting from 1:50 onwards I just about puked.  They called the restoration of the original versions a "waste of time."

Jesus.

In GL's point of view.

His point of view is wrong then.

Wrong opinions?

An opinion is open to moral scrutiny.

Indeed. Although saying that something is right and wrong is a very relative judgement. I disagree with Lucas when he thinks it's a waste of time to restore the movies, but I wouldn't say that what he does (or in this case, doesn't do) is wrong, when we are dealing with his product.