logo Sign In

Broom Kid

User Group
Members
Join date
3-Sep-2019
Last activity
24-Apr-2024
Posts
852

Post History

Post
#1304988
Topic
<strong>The Mandalorian</strong> - a general discussion thread - * <em><strong>SPOILERS</strong></em> *
Time

I think this Imperial Remnant’s last ditch shot at establishing some dominance comes in the form of a plan to attempt cloning historically force sensitive beings (Yodas) and genetically modifying them somehow, which would, of course, resonate pretty strongly with The Mandalorian, who remembers how a mercenary thief wearing his culture’s stolen armor agreed to a similar bargain before the Clone Wars started - said wars, of course, leaving him a foundling and scarring him for life.

Essentially, Herzog’s character might be asking himself “Why did the Jedi decide to clone a stupid bounty hunter when they could have cloned their greatest master?” and now a Mandalorian bounty hunter has to decide between restoring his honor (and his culture) by honoring this imperial’s requests in return for all the beskar he could want, or denying this imperial the chance to re-establish their rule through the exploitation of this Yadpole, and saving Baby Yoda from being cloned by the Empire’s mad scientists.

Or maybe it’s none of that, who knows.

Post
#1304984
Topic
<strong>Disney+</strong> streaming platform : <strong>Star Wars content</strong> &amp; various other info
Time

3D conversion didn’t take that long, even in 2009. I don’t think they were working on 3D conversions that early, either. I think it’s much more plausible/probable that they got the idea to do 3D re-releases in 2011 (maybe late 2010), and decided that in order to make the 3D conversion as good as it could possibly be, they’d go back to the 97 negatives and re-scan everything in 4K (I believe the new scans were created in that year). Since the blu-rays were already more or less completed by that time, it was easy to take those changes and apply them to these new scans, plus add some extra changes that hadn’t gone into that home video release.

Essentially, it seems like the 3D re-release plan was the catalyst for Lucas to essentially start over from scratch in creating his preferred versions, the release of which would act as a guaranteed 3D income stream as well as promotion for whatever his sequel trilogy was going to be at that time - this is essentially the exact same purpose the Special Edition restoration served for his Prequel Trilogy: Sell the “old” versions on home video (1995: THX releases, 2011: blu-ray releases) screen “new” versions in theaters (1997: Special Editions, 2012: 3D re-releases) to generate hype for the new trilogy coming soon (1999: PT, 2014/15: ST)

And then TPM 3D came out, disappointed everyone financially, and the conversation surrounding the release was mostly negative. The 3D re-release idea was scrapped, and shortly afterwards he decided he was just going to sell the company to Disney.

Post
#1304978
Topic
4K restoration on Star Wars
Time

My understanding is that all the original elements used to create the Original Trilogy were saved (or at least all the ones that WERE saved) and went over to Disney with the sale. So yes, if they wanted to recomposite original effects over the top of the restored '97 negatives, they could do that.

But even if those elements didn’t exist anymore, considering the level at which VFX have progressed since 1997, they could probably just duplicate what the original plates looked like in the computer. If VFX houses can de-age Robert De Niro and resurrect Peter Cushing, they can probably figure out how to re-comp/fake-comp 1977-era VFX at 4K.

But yes: These aren’t the 2011 blu-rays. Many of the same changes applied to the blu-rays are still here, but the 4K restoration Reliance did in 2012 was done by re-scanning the 1997 negatives.

But as always, the question isn’t whether Disney CAN do something, but if they actually WANT to. And then it’s a question of whether Lucas won’t mind - because the execs at Lucasfilm and Disney do still care about whether or not they piss him off, and they don’t want to do that if they don’t have to. Hence Lucasfilm and the MPAA deferring to him in the case of that 70mm print being screened earlier this year.

Post
#1304972
Topic
4K restoration on Star Wars
Time

JawsTDS said:

This recent development has me wondering about those Blu-rays that came out a few weeks back. Everyone was aware that they had the 2011 changes on them, but I wondering if somehow they missed out on the fact that it could’ve had a new scan?

I read that it was just the 2011 discs rebranded / repackaged, but can anyone on this forum definitively confirm that?

It’s been confirmed, yes. They’re the exact same discs. They’re basically clearing backstock in preparation for the new set they’re releasing next year.

Post
#1304969
Topic
<strong>Disney+</strong> streaming platform : <strong>Star Wars content</strong> &amp; various other info
Time

doubleofive said:

Is… is this a sign they actually went back to the 97 negative and redid all of the subsequent changes?

That’s exactly what Reliance did, yes. Their restoration started with a new scan of the 1997 negative, and then all the 2011 changes (plus a few more) were applied to it.

Post
#1304719
Topic
Info: All Star Wars films released in 4K HDR on Disney Plus: 2019 SE with more changes
Time

Just spitballing: would using the 2020 UHD and 4K77/4K83 to target a 1080p release (much like current DeSpec uses 1080p sources to target a 720p release) be a viable option here?

It leaves ESB sort of out in the cold until 4K80 gets finished, I guess. It’s kind of funny that the movie typically considered to be the best Star Wars movie is the one that’s taking the longest to get finished. Such is the way of things. The way of the Force…

Post
#1304696
Topic
4K restoration on Star Wars
Time

mapet318 said:
The best comparison will come if/when the DRM gets cracked and the original source streams become available.

I wonder if the source streams will even be accessible, though. I know that for Netflix offline downloads, the copy you download isn’t the source stream, it’s a still-heavily-compressed downloadable version. I wonder if that’s what people will be able to save to their hard drives on Disney+ as well.

either way, the source will be made available sooner rather than later when the UHDs are officially released sometime next year.

Post
#1304642
Topic
4K restoration on Star Wars
Time

Hal 9000 said:

It’s weird to see a SE presentation look so… filmic. It honestly looks like 4K77 more than the BluRay.

IIRC the Lowry/Reliance scan was made from the Special Edition negatives, and then had the 2011 blu-ray changes applied to it (as well as the MacLunkey and other minor fixes) before being finished. So if it looks more filmic, it’s probably due to that.

Post
#1304639
Topic
4K restoration on Star Wars
Time

Fang Zei said:

Since anyone with a Disney+ subscription can now stream the movies in 4k hdr whenever they want, I have to wonder if Disney isn’t planning on restoring the OOT to include in the UHD disc package just so they can give fans a selling point other than simply “the same exact thing you can stream on D+ … but with better compression and on a disc!”

We’re speculating on that very thing in the Star Wars Legacy thread right now, haha.

DominicCobb said:

I’m curious how the other films fare. DNR on TPM? Teal tint on AOTC? Wipe or hard cut in ROTS?

Oh hey, the DNR on TPM question is a good one. I haven’t seen anything about that yet anywhere (obviously I’m not able to do my own lookthru here at work. I have JUST enough time to hawk a couple messageboards inbetween doing my actual job, LOL)

Post
#1304621
Topic
StarWarsLegacy.com - The Official Thread
Time

Considering both blu-ray and 4K UHD are formats that are essentially “collectors only” purchases at this point (kind of like a better, more idealized Laser Disc really) I think that best case scenario is worth holding onto at least a tiny measure of hope? I’m sure it’ll get crushed by this time next year, haha. But the only people really buying physical media anymore are collectors and/or people who care that the image quality is as good as it can be. And both of those audience bases are really small compared to the general audience who has no problem w/ streaming quality, so you’ve gotta provide something a little extra to make that purchase seem “necessary.”

Post
#1304589
Topic
4K restoration on Star Wars
Time

That doesn’t account for the idea that mattes have stabilized and gate weave has been eliminated, though. I think if they went to the trouble to accurately (and finally!) color correct all the lightsabers and re-do them while restoring for 4K, they probably (and finally!) erased all the garbage mattes and stabilized the image, too.

David: upthread I linked to someone screencapping Pablo’s tweets.

Post
#1304587
Topic
Info: All Star Wars films released in 4K HDR on Disney Plus: 2019 SE with more changes
Time

My nitpicky addition to these conversations: The 2011 blu-ray release isn’t a Special Edition. The only Special Edition came out in 1997. Everything else since then is just a version of Star Wars. It’s easier to simply delineate any version by year than it is to continue calling them all “Special Editions.”

At this point, the name is a complete misnomer. There’s nothing “special” about them - the only one that’s actually special is the 1997 one, because it got a theatrical re-release under that title.

Post
#1304583
Topic
Episode IX: The Rise Of Skywalker - Discussion * <strong><em>SPOILER THREAD</em></strong> *
Time

DrDre said:

I think the entire concept of artistic expression as you define it is meaningless, because by that definition any form of expression is art, hence nothing is art. It’s like those schools, where a student can’t fail, and everyone gets a passing grade. Anyone calls themselves an artist these days, effectively putting themselves in the leagues of a Mozart, Beethoven, Leonardo DaVinci, Stanley Kubrick, Oscar Wilde, etc, etc. It’s preposterous in my view. Making a painting doesn’t automatically make you an artist in my book, just like being able to count to ten doesn’t make you a Math Professor.

Don’t know what else to say. The question isn’t Art or Not Art. it’s Good Art or Bad Art.

Beethoven and The Prodigy are both musical artists. Daniel Johnston and Mozart. The Chainsmokers and Vivaldi. Skrillex and Johnny Cash. The entire concept of artistic expression as I defined it is how it’s defined. That doesn’t make it meaningless. Art has meaning, even the crappiest art. And that’s where your argument about it being like a “crappy school where nobody can fail” falls apart, because being Crappy Art is BAD. Yes, you tried to express yourself via artistic intent, and you did it terribly. That’s not a good thing. You made bad art and it reflects poorly on you. “Being an artist” doesn’t shield you from having made crappy art. It didn’t protect Mapplethorpe. Or John Waters.

That’s honestly enough. Trying to levy the charge that The Force Awakens isn’t really art AT ALL just doesn’t make any sense, and is a pretty huge overreaction, as is the decision to try and disqualify its status AS art in response. It’s obviously art. It’s okay if you don’t like it and think that it’s bad. You don’t have to go as far as you do. It’s a massively unneccessary step to take in order to make the criticisms you’re making.

The idea that Transformers and Rembrandt have to occupy the same rarified air doesn’t really make any sense. I don’t know why you’d do that. That’s a restriction you’re placing on art’s possibilities, not an actual artistic restriction. Star Wars and Tartovsky’s Solaris probably shouldn’t be on the same shelf either. The Statue of Liberty and Mad Max Fury Road don’t really go together. They’re both legitimate forms of artistic expression, though. Low art is still art. And people can make bad low art, but that doesn’t mean it’s not art. There’s no point in trying to disqualify it as art before you criticize it. You can just criticize it for what it is: Bad art.