BobaJett

Colson said:

BobaJett said:

Thanks for the replies yall. Thats what I thought, but I wasnt quite sure. Basically a non-anamporphic disc will display in a 4:3 AR and when you stretch it all out to look right, youre basically enlarging the pixals which in turn degredates the image. To be honest, despite owning the GOUT, I dont think Ive ever watched it on my 16x9 TV. I wish the powers that be would offer scope copies along with the Bluray. That way youd get the full resolution instead of the 1920x860 or whatever it is.

The Blu-rays do have the proper aspect ratio and resolution, despite their myriad other issues.

No, they don’t. At 1.78:1 they do, but a scope blue ray is roughly 1920x856 or so. When you watch that with a projector, you get a slightly less than ideal image compared to an anamorphic scope theatre experience.

Ive never seen such clarity like these two frames. But, I really cant see a difference, other than yours is being more contrasty. Granted Im color-blind, but I asked my GF to tell me the difference and she had trouble seeing a difference as well. Perhaps its my monitor, but what am I looking for? At least so I can tell her and see if she sees it. Super cool none the less.

Thanks for the replies yall. Thats what I thought, but I wasnt quite sure. Basically a non-anamporphic disc will display in a 4:3 AR and when you stretch it all out to look right, youre basically enlarging the pixals which in turn degredates the image. To be honest, despite owning the GOUT, I dont think Ive ever watched it on my 16x9 TV. I wish the powers that be would offer scope copies along with the Bluray. That way youd get the full resolution instead of the 1920x860 or whatever it is.

Can someone answer a question for me that I cant seem to find an answer to, even on Google. I feel stupid asking it becasue I should know it already. Im a bit confused when it comes to the term “non-anamorphic.” I often hear that the GOUT version is non-anamorphic, yet it looks no different than any other widescreen offering of SW.

AllAboutThatSpace said:

Very jealous you saw Jedi in curved 70mm! But anamorphic IMAX wouldn’t be possible unfortunately, either in terms of designing the lenses, building the cinemas or getting projection bulbs bright enough.

Yeh, It was a cool theatre here in town. When I got older it was one of my first jobs. I loved working there. The memories remind of the kid in “Last Action Hero”, although the theatre wasnt that ornate, but it still was a cool theatre. In the lobby, there was a wall of fame lined with pictures of movie stars that had visited there from 1940-1980ish along with two marble slabs that were signed by each star. Walt Disney signed it and drew Mickey and Donald next to his signature. Even Anthony Daniels signed it! The lady that worked the box office had been working there since the 50’s and was in nearly every picture in the background of the stars. It was very cool. Even after 30+ yrs working there, she only made minimum wage ($3.35 hr in 87’).
Yeh, I was more or lessing venting because of how theatres have takien a nosedive when it comes to design and advertising. The hardware is top notch, but they fall short on viewing medium. To add to your comment, I guess a 700mm IMAX anamorphic would be so wide at that size youd be hard pressed to see the whole screen. IMAX is great for documentaries or nature flicks, but Im old school and prefer the scope screens when it comes to movies. The least they could do is maintain CIH, thats what bugs me the most. This is the theatre I saw Jedi in.

Dek Rollins said:

My problem with IMAX scenes is that the AR shift wouldn’t have to happen if they just did the whole thing in IMAX. Either use IMAX or don’t use IMAX.

Yall may disagree withme and call me an idiot, but even a movie in all IMAX format would suck IMO. The problem with cinemas today is the evolution of going from CIH to CIW. In the old days, and still in some cinemas today, but not many, You had a screen that was typically a Cinemascope AR (2.39:1) with curtains on each side and at the bottom. The bottom curtain was for that rare Super Panavision (2.75:1 AR). If the movie happened to be filmed in Panavision (2.20:1 AR), the curtains would draw in a bit to accomadate the AR. Or, if it was a Flat (1.85:1) they would draw in a bit more. Despite all of that, the height of the screen stayed the same. Now, more often than not, the width is the same but the height changes, which greatly redduces the experience and IMO is false advertisement. Example, I went to see “Logan” the other night. The ticket said “IMAX” and yes, it was in the IMAX theatre. But it wasnt IMAX. It was a 2.35:1 image projected on the IMAX screen.
As far as your question DEK, I say why not film the entire movie in 2.39:1 on 70mm Anamorphic IMAX? The human eyes naturally scan left to right, not up and down. If you had an IMAX size 2:39:1 screen, imagine how immersed youd be. I remember watching ROTJ in 70MM in an old classic theatre on opening day. The screen was originally a Cinerama (curved) screen that was renovated prior to Jedi, but they still kept some of the curve which made it even more immersive. Ill never forget it. I feel changing AR’s are directors being lazy. You can still convey size and height by changin the focal length of the lense or changing where you take the shot. I hate changing aspect ratio and I dont care for IMAX. Its nothing more than a glorified version of our TVs at home, actually not even as wide as our tvs at home. Thats completely counter to what our brains do naturally.

(1977) As we all know, when SW was originally released, it was only in a few select cities. Once it was obvious everyone loved it, they went into nationwide release. At age 7, I was already a huge sc-fi fan and I remember my parents showing me the ad in the paper for SW showings and telling me it was this new “greatest” sc-fi flick that was getting great reviews. I couldnt wait to see it. We went and saw it on opening weekend in my city, 6/17/77. The moment the Tantive IV came across the screen, I was totally enthralled. At that time, there had been nothing remotely like SW. (Maybe one could argue 2001) SW completely and totally reshaped how movies were made, how they sounded and when they were released.Ive argued this in other threads before, but depending on when you saw SW for the first time can greatly affect how you receive it as a film. After that original showing, I was obsessed with SW. I couldnt get enough. After SW, I saw each installment on opening day/weekend.

Here is one article on how SW changed how movies sounded and how theatres adapted: (How do I post a link where you click "here?"
http://www.tested.com/starwars/460476-star-wars-and-explosion-dolby-stereo/

Ive seen a few threads concerning Predator, but it seems the interest has died. Are there any active Predator preservations? It seems every release is sub-par.

I watched it the day it aired as an 8 yr old. Then, it was very, very cool. Well, the SW stuff was cool. Even then I couldve done without the singing and Jefferson Starship. But I remember being so excited while watching it. The Boba Fett cartoon was by far the coolest part of it. Fast forward to 10 years or so ago when I got a copy online and burned to DVD. Almost impossible to watch as an adult.

I tried watching portions of Sith the other night and it was hard. Aside from Mannequin Skywalkers abysmal acting, the script/dialogue made the other decent actor look crappy as well.

One idea I thought of was to edit (greatly) the really cool scenes (preferably no dialogue) into one movie that quickly tells the back story of pertinent details leading up to R1 and then ANH. As bad as they were, there are some scenes that I still enjoy today.

Whoa dudes!! Lets take a deep breath. Just to be clear, Im not rying to poke a hole in the Star Wars canon here. A thought just popped into my head while I was working and it got me to thinking. Thanks for all the answers though.

We know Bail O. uses the Tantive 4, or same model of ship, in the OT. So it stands to reason this was indeed Leias ship, with Leias troops/guards/etc. The Tantive was how she travelled back and forth to work. Assuming that, then the gray/black guys were indeed Alderaanians. Apparently, the political leanings of Alderaans leaders heavily influenced their people, hence the large contingency of similarly dressed troops in the final ceremony of ANH. All Im trying to establish is a long held believe from childhood is that if you wore grey and black with the funny helmet, you were a rebel. Well, thats just not true based on the events of R1 and ANH. Kind of like the “not all muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are muslims” adage.

ATMachine said:

The 1975 second draft refers to “Aquillian rangers” who protect the Rebel ship from the stormtroopers. Perhaps this was their official name at one point. (“Aquillian” comes from “Aquilae,” Leia’s home planet in the 1974 rough draft.)

If thats the case, then it seems all of the staff on hand for the closing ceremony in ANH were Alderaanians. I wonder where the rest of the rebel folks that were at the Yavin moon were? Working on the ships? Guard duty?

DominicCobb said:

If that was the preferred uniform of the rebels, then Leia rebutting Vaders claim at the beginning of ANH was pretty silly, seeing as that there were dead rebel troops laying about and others being taken into custody.

It doesn’t matter if they’re wearing a rebel uniform or not. The fact that they defended themselves against the stormtroopers at all makes them rebels. If Leia wasn’t lying, they would have let the Imperials board peacefully. Her lie was obvious to everyone there. It was done, like the rebel soldiers defending, to buy time for the plans to escape.

Yeh, Kind of. Bu Leia was a member of the Imperial Senate and supposedly on a diplomatic mission. So, if that story was to have any credence, that means that she has been affiliated with the greay and black guys before, otherwise Vader wouldve brought that up in their discussion. The fact they defended against the troopers is a bit flawed as evidenced by R1. the Empire often times did shady stuff behind the scenes to get what they wanted and then covered it up, ie: “inform the senate all aboard were killed.” I think anyone boarded in a violent way by troopers, good or bad, wouldve defended themselves regardless if they were rebel sympathizers. Just a thought though. I have a lot of free time to let my mind wander at work and this thought just popped into my head.

Im obviously referring to what we have always referred to as “rebel soldiers.” In ANH, at the beginning, they defend the stormtrooper assault. If they were “known” rebel soldiers, then Vaders interrogation of Leia wouldve been a moot point. SO that leads me to think perhaps they were Alderaanian soldiers/guards or whatever. Perhaps a personal entourage to Leia? But yet, we see many of that type of uniform at the end ceremony of ANH and a few in R1. If that was the preferred uniform of the rebels, then Leia rebutting Vaders claim at the beginning of ANH was pretty silly, seeing as that there were dead rebel troops laying about and others being taken into custody. Or were they another group that were actually rebel sympathizers while at the same time pretending allegiance to the Empire??
Shit, I meant to put this in the random thought thread. My bad! 😦

DominicCobb said:

Cthulhunicron said:

How is not major? It’d be like if the original Star Wars never explained what the Death Star weakness was.

Not at all. It’d be like if the original Star Wars never explained why Leia couldn’t just beam the plans directly to Yavin.

Easy, too big of a file for that distance, and possibly it couldve been traced to the receiving point and the rebel base location revealed. Granted, they had transmissions between Yavin and the Rogue guys, but those were quick verbal transmissions, not large files of information that maybe wouldve been easier to trace. Who knows? In the real world, during my ARMY commo days, transmissions were made to be short and to the point to avoid be located in some instances. Maybe the same applies to transmitting the plans to Yavin.

joefavs said:

BobaJett said:

I disagree. That line was totally out of character for Vader. Quippy Vader is not. Im quickly going though my head as I type this and I cannot recall one line from Vader in the OT where he quipped. He was always business. Help me jog my memory.

“Apology accepted, Captain Needa.”

😃

Alderaan said:

Tarkin was completely unnecessary and a real blemish on the film. Leia could have been done with a hologram, but honestly I didn’t mind her at all.

Is your opinion swayed by the fact that you didnt care for the CGI likeness or because you genuinly feel he wasnt needed to connect the two movies? Me personally, I kind of liked it. I think its neat that we have the abilioty to bring someone back from the dead. Granted, they shouldve used different lighting and perhaps even applied some type of blur filter to not make it quite so obvious. But dont you think we needed to see a bit of Tarkin seeing as that he was assigned to the DS?

FanFiltration said:

For some reason I did not like the bottom part of Darth Vader’s mask. It looked like a flexible rubber pull over to me. And Vader’s walking stride (gate) was noticeably different. Also the voice seems to have been processed quite differently as well.

I agree with your observation of his mask and thought it stuck out like a sore thumb. But, after pulling up some images from the OT, it seems very similar to this go around. I think what was going on in the OT is how he wore his cape. If you look at a few different scenes, often times his cape was covering a good portion of his chin/neck. Also, I think lighting had a lot to do with it. Im with you though, it still bugged me.

ZkinandBonez said:

Can someone explain to me what’s wrong with Vader’s dialogue? (Not counting that James Earl Jones sounds older, or the voice modulation.) I can’t remember his dialogue word for word (I might have forgotten some odd lines), but as I was watching the film I thought it was fine. I especially thought his “don’t choke on your aspirations” line was spot on.

I’ve read elsewhere that some people feel that Vader isn’t supposed to say snarky things like that, which I don’t get at all. The OT had several moments of Vader being snarky and intimidating at the same time.

I disagree. That line was totally out of character for Vader. Quippy Vader is not. Im quickly going though my head as I type this and I cannot recall one line from Vader in the OT where he quipped. He was always business. Help me jog my memory.

Im tired, so I will be short. Loved the final 2 min, the movie was maybe a bit better than TFA and WTF was up with Vaders neck piece? It looked like he had a quadruple chin under the helemt. Why was it so damn wide and fat? Didnt look right. I need to see the movie again to really comment on more. But like Ive said in so many prior posts here, with many disagreeing, you have to view these movies with a filter. You have to view them as if you were a 7-13 yr old boy. Thus far, I havent heard one negative review from someone in that age range. Acting aside and story aside, if it entertains the child in us, or the child with us, then it succeeded. Thats just my opinion. As far as the CGI, I didnt really mind it. I think its cool we have the technology to resurrect a dead actor and look, sound and act like them. Maybe some kind of blur filter mightve helped hide some of the small flaws, but to a kid, they wont care or probably notice it. Could it have been written and executed better? Sure! We will probably never get back that feeling and awe we felt that first time we saw ANH. Well, those of us that saw it in 77-79 that is. A 7 yr old seeing ANH in 1977 is going to have a completely different perception of the film from a 7 yr old seeing it in 1988, and in turn that 7 yr olds perception will be different from one seeing it in 2000. I think each of us get a little bit something different out of each of these newer films. What excites one person may fall flat with another. We have to take the good with the bad and hope for the best in the next film. Me personally, the last 2 or 3 minutes was awesome! That alone was worth the price of admission.

DrDre said:

Oke, here’s the soldier shot as it might look (hopefully) next year (it’s work in progress at 1080p, but you get the idea).

On a side note, the first time I saw SW, I thought this guy was Lukes Dad. Dont ask me why, but conspiracy theories abound in a classroom of 1st grade boys.

Has anyone bought the new 30th BD yet? How is it?

TV’s Frink said:

BobaJett said:

She was 14 in TPM. Do the math for the later ones.

I wonder who this is addressed to.

No one in particular, I just thought it was common knowledge how old NP was when she was cast for TPM.

She was 14 in TPM. Do the math for the later ones. Anyways, the subject of this thread caught my eye because recently, and I cant recall where or when, I heard this very conversation about Maul. If memory serves me correctly, it was shown in some early releases at special screenings or something. I just cant recall.

Im game. Send me a PM and ill get back to you.