My god!
The clarity! The depth!
They should have sent a poet.
Tyrphanax said:
One of the biggest problems with the EU prior to ROTJ was that the New Republic was around for like ten minutes and it was already in another batch of huge wars and beginning to crumble and it devalued the conclusion of the OT. Give us some peace, make it seem like the Rebellion was a success; nothing interesting happens and everything is awesome for 20-30 years, then, suddenly, oh crap! Time to defend the Republic!
That just makes sense to me.
Too long? What kind of complain is that?
Bad plot? What, are you kidding? The InGen takeover is probably an even better plot than the first one. And this really gets into why JP3 is bad, atrocious effects aside, Spielberg insisted the animals never be made the villian because they're just animals. And he's right. Who's the bad guy in JP? Dennis maybe, the god of chaos willing that shit hits the fan. Who's the bad guy in TLW? Even easier, you've got Hammond's nephew, arguably the hunter guy doing stupid things.
Who's the bad guy in JP3? Yeah that's right the bloody lame spinosaur. It has no plot other than rargh, bad CGI dinos eat you!!! Wild animals bad! Rargh!
Anyway. I really, really hope it's not Johnston because of this.
Well there were only two JP movies to compare with. Sorry.
I'm sorry is this OT.com?
I can't believe what I'm reading.
JP3 is to JP and TLW as TPM is to SW and ESB
Jaitea said:
I actually prefer JP3 to TLW, the massive hole in the story of TLW has ruined the film for me. I think Johnson is a fine director.
J
Was the original release date for 7 not to be 2011? We're only going 4 years over schedule. They can do it.
Bester said:
I think he actually did a good job with JP3. The problem with the JP series, IMO, is that all the movies are a bit 'samey'. Johnson can't be blamed for that.
In accordance with the theme of production following the story, OT = rebelling against hollywood, PT = George's Evil Empire
The ST will have to be a newbie, fresh blood. Passing it on into a new generation.
And I think actually maybe Blomkamp would fit the bill. He's maybe not super young, but he's not that old either, and he's a fairly up and coming director still. He was going to do the Halo movie and of course District 9 was great. While he does use CGI a lot, I like his very naturalistic use of it.
Elysium is coming out 2013 so he should be freed up to actually be a realistic choice.
Johnston, no thanks, was it not he who destroyed Jurassic Park?
Unfortunately, ILM basically doesn't do anything but animation any more, and chances of a Star Wars getting made without their filthy hands polluting the frame is virtually nil, save if somehow Christoper Nolan or a similar puritan gets to direct the special effects.
georgec said:
That's one area I think where TPM had an advantage - I think they filmed much more of that film in real settings than they did for AOTC and ROTS, which feel almost exclusively like bluescreen stages.
I don't think any rhyme or reason will ever be found in those changes.
The original purpose of changing anything at all was to update some of the more dated effects. And let's be honest, the effects in Star Wars are largely great, but some of them just don't fly. If not for the desire to update the bad effects, "Special Edition" would have simply been a film restoration and 5.1 mix and this site wouldn't exist.
The best part is, a lot of those bad effects are still in the films to this day, look on the Blu-ray, you will find them. And contrarily, some of the best effects have since been replaced by worse CGI effects.
No reasoning can be assigned to this, it is for all intents and purposes, random.
I tend to stick with GOUT. It's easier than trying to discern between all the fan restorations although I want to give them a try. The smearing, bad levels, poor resolution and everything is a huge issue, but it's the one that is easiest to come by. And really, any "restoration" that is sourced off a DVD or BD is questionable to me. Because try as you might, once those blacks have been crushed, they are never coming back. No matter how carefully you colour correct it.
I cannot abide by the DVD or Blu-ray changes for any of the films. I might watch '97, because the colours are great and there are genuine improvements here and there, but since I only had access to them on VHS that's not really an option any more.
For "Star Wars" (what do you mean 'A New Hope'?) I really just can't stand it, though, because a lot of my favorite shots in the space battle were replaced by piss poor CG. And of course Han shot first, Jabba is fugly etc.
I've watched Revisited of IV, but while I like a lot of it, it's a very mixed bag. As much bad as there is good. But some of the minor changes really help make it a better film. That tends to be the problem with fan edits really.
At the end of the day, the version I really want to watch doesn't really exist yet, mainly because of the huge issues with most any home video transfer that exists. Especially after seeing those photos of the Senator print, those lightsabers are beautiful. I wan't to see that in motion. But the DVD replaced them with CG, and they're blown out to oblivion on GOUT.
Here's hoping for the 35mm project and/or Disney to do something.
P.S. Oh, and of course, I can't stand CG Yoda or the new dumb scenes in TPM either. It's my favorite prequel, and probably the only one I really consider enjoyable. So of course if it's even remotely good George has to change it. Not even the prequels are safe!
Once again I'd simply watch the perfectly good VHS if only I could.
Oh boy, how can I have missed this? I loved ABC's previous work. Are you still passing links around? Pretty please?
Sorry, I've been out and around other parts of the internet for quite a while. But a recent broadcast of the whole series on TV made me remember this place. Unfortunately t'was the blu-ray versions it seems. (No! Noooo! >:E)
I know, and as twice now he has displayed unwavering adherance to his own ideas I won't bring anything up again. I will now merely await its release. Good or bad.
Not that I doubt it will be overwhelmingly good.
I say if you're going to watch it go all the way, warts and all. IMHO it's better that way, because the "purist" version isn't really purist at all TBH.
Because me pointing this out somehow disturbs you from enjoying it? I'm sorry you're just being a jerk now.
:: Personal attacks are not acceptable - consider yourself on a warning.
- M
Your loss.
I love what you're doing here but if you are simply too stuck up to take criticism proper, then I can't help but fear for the final quality.
adywan said:
No i do not insist on misinterpreting every word you say at all. All i have done is answer back to exactly what you wrote. There is no misinterpreatation at all as it's as clear as day what you wrote.
And that picture you just posted with the comparisons you have actually proved yourself to be totally wrong. You are comparing completely the wrong sections of the city and , as you have shown, my new matte has exactly the same type of gradient so i really can't see the problem
And you have obviously checked the colouring on the 2004 set for this shot as it was never as dark as it is now, which is why i said to check the original, not the SE.
You really insist on misinterpreting my every word? Okay, let me show you instead.
http://imageshack.dk/imagesfree/eXQ12102.png
And yes, while the original is more heavily filtered this is to (successfully imho) create a very gloomy look where colour is nearly absent in favor of dark silhouettes against the sky. Your version is far more well lit and should have some more colour in it. Or, less, actually as both cloud city and the falcon are entirely grey.
There's a difference between shading and light source. You can still shade it the same way and have a different source for the light. I even painted out exactly which, and only this part of, the shading I was using as an example.
Vaderios' renders do a good job of showing that "deep gradings" don't occur unless the object in question is close to being paper thin. The transition phase from light to dark has a roughly fixed depth based on the shape and type of material.
And I know it's unfinished. However I also know that "unfinished" may also mean "close to final look" and figured any criticism would still be relevant to the parts you hadn't changed.
Hello, I know I'm probably a few aeons late with this, but I recently found the updated Cloud City approach shot on youtube again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oehCAWqibFs
It's fair, but has a few issues IMHO. First, it seems to suffer from orange-itis, which is to say many films these days - particularly Star Wars Episodes II and III are guilty - suffer from an apparent inability to contain other colours than a deep, brilliant orange. It's almost monochromatic, and somewhat out of tune with the generally more natural coloration of the OT. The clouds are largely fine, but the falcon and the city itself should probably show more of their natural colour rather than being almost chameleon like in their pigmentation.
Secondly, I don't know wtf is up with the shading on Cloud City. I know it's from one of the old mattes? But it's not a particularly good matte TBH. The way it is lit it would have to be... well, almost paper thin actually.
http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/0/118/673913-cloud_city_large.jpg
If you see here this matte has a lot better shading with a small but smooth transitional band from direct sunlight to ambient light, which is generally how round things shade when they are matte. And the shot should probably be updated to better reflect the circular nature of the beast.
I think when the Blu-rays come out owning the DVD's are no longer grey area enough for downloading HDTV rips. And so those will essentially become obsolete.
And I also think there will be improvements based on feedback from the DVD's. Hopefully.
That wouldn't need the line changed though, just the shuttle footage would suffice actually.
Don't get me wrong, I think the movie release of the year 2011 is going to be The Empire Strikes Back. (And not the one on Blu-ray. ;) )
That doesn't mean the scene isn't dear to me. A single scene doesn't define a work. But what it does mean is that it's going to be a novelty item rather than a definitive improvement. All the more saddening since it appears to be the only one of it's kind in your edit. Can't say for sure.
And no, I didn't consider that I might be wrong. Because I can't be. There's nothing up to interpretation in the scene, it's fairly clear cut and fits well within the extremely loosely defined space physics of Star Wars. You just keep telling me I'm wrong even when I told you how I think I'm not and you are, instead of defending your position with counter examples. I'm looking for one of two outcomes here; either you come to see the error of your ways, or you show me how your version makes sense and adds to the movie. Neither is happening right now because you are being extremely defensive.
Oh, and Bingowings, there's a difference between disagreeing and pretty much telling me to get lost and stop disagreeing with anything adywan has done.
It doesn't only come up now, in fact this is the very reason I'm even on the forum to begin with. I sent adywan a PM about it as soon as I registered. The thread was full of other stuff and I didn't want to spam him about it. No reply, fast forward and Ady is having serious personal issues, not best time to talk about it, fast forward again and now I see thread has no large discussion going on and bring it up again.
And honestly, who came to www.originaltrilogy.com if not to bitch about small changes ruining a film forever?
Of course that would take time out of him extending his wire, but that's pretty hilaribad to watch anyway.