CP3S

Xenia Ewok Princess

bkev said:

 

EXCUSE ME
EXCUSE ME
EXCUSE ME!

It's O'Neil. Shame on you and C3PS!

 

I would have never remembered April was a redhead if Xhonzi hadn't first mentioned her. I specifically mentioned her because I thought it was funny he mentioned his wife having a red wig for an April O'Neil Halloween costume, but forgot to mention her in his list. Even more surprising is that I didn't think to mention Willow from Buffy the Vampire Slayer my favorite and only angsty teenage drama, or Donna Noble and Amy Pond from Doctor Who, which I just finished watching five seasons of between February till last month.

I guess when I think of important nerdy redheads, Mary Jane Watson is first and foremost on my mind.

:D

ChainsawAsh said:

Well, there's also Cass, another human female companion you can have in New Vegas, who isn't played by Felicia Day.

Although she's a redhead, too...

Damn, you're right! I totally forget about Cass... the poor girl I kept screwing over accidentally...

That is funny that she is also a redhead though.

skyjedi2005 said:

For some Reason when Bob Z did the release for Back to the Future on DVD and blu ray however he refused to have the noticeable things like wires holding up marty mcly painted out. 

I didn't know about that. I think I just fell in love with Robert Zemeckis. The first Back to the Future DVD set was fantastic and used to be what I wished the a Star Wars boxset of the OOT would be. Since then Blade Runner has replaced it at the top of my list of most amazing DVD sets of all time. Sounds like the trend is continuing into the BD realm.

Regarding Xhonzi's question of whether or not we'd still pursue a proper release of the original if a replica of the original was made with newly composited special effects. Absolutely I would. I wouldn't even bother spending money on a set that only replicated the look of the original.

Regarding Fink's comment about how many little changes have been made over the years. I guess to some of you we may come off as comically anal, but tiny little changes here and there aren't that big of a deal to me, but completely redoing the special effects is not a tiny little change. That is a massive overhaul, even if it is done to resemble the original as closely as possible sans the "flaws".

TV's Frink said:

CP3S said:

Felicia Day.

I'm pretty sure she's real.

Right, but she is definitely a nerd icon. She plays in nerdy fiction and all her characters are redheads.

Also worthy of mention is her role in Fallout: New Vegas as the only (human) female companion you can have in the game (yes, a redhead).

April O'Neal.

Felicia Day.

The one and only playable female character in Borderlands is a redhead.

Hehehe @Little Mermaid and redhead on peanuts. I know every nerd I've ever known has always been nuts about those two.

Fink is starting to feel like an anal wart. Can't seem to get him away from my ass since I made that comment in the BD thread.

;) <----------

S_Matt said:

Wow, the hostility I didn't expect. Its a debate, folks, and I don't shy away from an issue. Its good to discuss these things. I appreciate all points of view...

Whoa, whoa, whoa, not sure where you are seeing hostility. I certainly didn't intend any, nor did I read any into the other guy's posts. We may disagree, sometimes pretty strongly, but I think we are all good here.

Well I know you don't.

S_Matt said:

CP3S said:

You are still talking about using modern special effects technology on an old film.

 

but modern digital cleanup tools are totally fine? My argument is that if you approve of one you logically have to approve of the other.

But that isn't logical at all. What you are talking about is completely redoing those special effects, that isn't true restoration and that isn't even comparable to using modern techniques to remove dirt and scratches that have accumulated over time. 

You've even dropped down to the point where you are mixing up content with means of presentation. How does the fact that they didn't have LCD screens back in the seventies have anything do with what is presented in the actual film? Obviously we are not suggesting you have to preserve and entire 1970's cinema along with the films to properly view them.

It is kind of interesting to see how split even us "purists" are in what we want. I'm not sure if I could blame an outsider for looking in on things like this and thinking we are absolutely ridiculous. Honestly, how can we condemn some changes and alterations while being full on supportive about others? If you're going to modernize the special effects at all, you might as well remove bad puppetry, poor looking models, and any other special effects limitations of the time. If that is what we want, George already did that.

S_Matt said

The fact that some matte lines would end up harder to see and in some cases vanish altogether would be a pleasant side effect. You can't limit the use of technology to clean and improve films just because some people used it badly before. One should also consider that there were no computers capable of frame by frame painting out of dirt and scratches and selective color correction not just of whole frames, but *parts* of the frame too, in 1977. Should they be restricted to photochemical repairs (which can only do so much)?

I actually think you misunderstood our continuation of your car analogy.

You are still talking about using modern special effects technology on an old film. I can see how some of you would like that, but some of us like to see our films in the context of their time. It isn't that some people used it "badly before". By saying those effects were poorly done is putting in into the context of our time. That technology evolved, certainly we can do it better today, but back then that is what they had to work with. That is what I want to see.

I was once watching one of the Star Wars films with someone and they exclaimed "Wow, that is amazing they could do these effect back in the 80's". Total facepalm moment! The thing is, they were right! The effects the Star Wars films had at there time were ground breaking and amazing, and was a big part of the reason the films were as popular as they were, no one had seen anything like it before. Only this person that made that exclamation wasn't seeing those amazing effects that impressed people back in the late 70's and early 80's, they were seeing 1997 special effects.

I want to see those original effect as the original audience saw them, flaws and all. I don't consider the fact that redoing them with today's technology and having the matte lines harder to see or disappear altogether a pleasant side effect any more than I'd consider souping up a vintage car with modern parts or a newer faster engine to be a pleasant side effect. I want the experience of driving that vintage car as close to the experience that people got from driving back when it first came out, I might have to crank the windows up and down, and it doesn't have power steering or anti-lock breaks, but that is a big part of what the car was. Change those things and it is a very different car. 

I am totally with Gaff and zombie. I want to see those little flaws, they were a product of where special effects were at during the time the films were made. I want to see the film in its historic context as close to the way the original audience saw it as possible.

To me, if you are going to polish up the special effects with modern technology, why not add some CG explosions, or add in some extra ships via CG. While we are in the process of covering up old special effects, why not add other elements that were not part of the film before, things the film maker wanted to have but couldn't? Why not add windows to the walls of Bespin? What is the big deal with replacing the midgets in THX1138 with CG creatures? I really can't honestly say the white walls or the midgets were better than what they were replaced with, in fact, I'd have to agree the changes are a definite improvement in those instances... but they are out of place.

It is like adding power windows to your 1967 Ford Mustang. Power windows are a definite improvement over cranks any day, but you've just entirely missed the point of owning a vintage car.

Yeah, I'd kind of like a source for that too. I've assumed it wouldn't have them, because then that would be just like releasing a Build-Your-Own-OOT in High Definition kit... which when you really think about it is kind of pathetic that this would be a too good to be true scenario, yet really is. I was still keeping a slim glimmer of hope it might...

Seriously? We don't have any other Black Ops players around these parts? Loving the new map pack, spent a ridiculous amount of time on them this last weekend thanks to double XP weekend.

For the last few days I've been Chuckin' it up... err, that doesn't sound right... I mean I've been watching Chuck over the last few days. It's okay. Doesn't really stand out as anything spectacular though.

Oh man, and my girlfriend has been watching Bones... the writing on that show is almost consistently bad and often drops into the realm of agonizing. I don't know if earlier seasons were better and the cast is just getting bored at this point, but sometimes the delivery of their lines are (impressively) almost as bad as the dialogue they are given.

BloodnoseThePirate said:

Alright new tactic: Everyone go on the fan page and say that your sad about what star war has become. George will feel so bad for us that he has to give us the theatrical trilogy! EH? EH?

Hmmm, maybe if we all post on the FB page in a concentrated effort, stating calmly, concisely, peacefully, and affably as possible, we will make a big enough scene with a loud enough voice that we might get an amended September BD release... or all of our posts would get deleted...

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

miker71 said:

It's not sad, it's business.

What's sad is that the world as an adult is not as you imagine it to be as a 7 year old boy.

Not sure I understand your point.  Many of us believe that Lucas not releasing the OT in decent form is a bad business decision, and is purely being done out of some sort of personal thing.  And as a 7-year-old boy, I don't think I would have cared if a theatrical version of a movie was being released or not.

Well put, Puggo. I've been scratching my head on that one. If the OUT was released on DVD/BD tomorrow, I'd run out and buy it first chance I got. As it stands, the only SW DVDs I've ever purchased were the GOUT, and I waited until I got them used for less than $10 a piece.

The effort to restore the remaining non-SE elements would cost relatively little (not to mention it has been offered to be done free of charge), and there is evidence those elements have already been restored anyway. It would be just as easy for those to be placed into the new Blu-ray set as all the other worthless crap that is on them. The only reason it isn't is that stubborn, "they don't exist anymore attitude".

It isn't business, it is a defiant stance that may very well be costing business (though, admittedly, very minor). But it most definitely isn't business. All this fan animosity that has developed over the last decade, this rift in fandom, the "Han shot first 'debate'" would all for the most part go away (or be no more volatile than the "Kirk or Picard" thing in Trekkie fandom) if the unaltered trilogy were included. 

I don't feel like anything has changed. An entire popular media format was born and died without the originals ever getting a proper release. There is nothing new here.

My best childhood friend's younger siblings haven't even seen the originals (I just realized this depressing fact a year ago when I went to visit his family). He and I had always been huge Star Wars fans, when he moved out of the house taking his old VHS set with him his family replaced them with a 1997 SE VHS set because that was what was available. These kids are in college themselves now, and have never known anything but the '97 SE. The originals have already been suppressed to an entire generation.

The 2004 set came out seven years ago, that is the only Star Wars children of the DVD generation have known; unless they happen to have accidentally popped in the bonus DVD from an '06 set or have parents who know the difference between the versions and care.

Unless they have parents who are big enough fans to care about the difference between SE and OOT, the vast majority of kids aren't going to be exposed to the unaltered films. It is that way now, and it will be that way on Blu-ray. Even if the OOT is released on BD someday, that still isn't going to change.

I actually didn't think it was possible to make a film about lesbians interesting.

dark_jedi said:

zombie84 said:

If it has all or most of the quality control problems of 2004, I'd at least say you've been ripped off.

We will all see this September won't we, I just refuse to buy into this whole Doom and Gloom thing, and right out of the box label it an "Epic Fail", sorry, but until we have rock solid proof of this, and people have actually seen them in person, pretty much everyone is talking, well you figure it out.

I seem to remember a lot of this kind of talk around the boards back in 2006... and in 2004... and in 2005 pre-ROTS. I think some of us have experienced it enough to kind of know what to expect.

Every time there is someone who plays the "Oh gee fellas, let's reserve judgment" role, and usually after the fateful date they really can't say a whole lot. Well, I say they can't say a whole lot... they do usually hang on desperately for a bit... but eventually they get tired of lying to themselves to save face.

In 2006 it was "Aw come on, non-anamorphic doesn't look that bad!" and "Well, we did ask for 'unaltered' LOL and anamorphic would have been altered... come on, George's massive cock feels real great in the rectum if you just bend over and relax!"

Bück dich, dein gesicht ist mir egal!

Erikstormtrooper said:

Just for the sake of beating a dead horse, I have no idea what race this guy is supposed to be. Also, I wonder if his armpit skin enables flight.

Asian guy with broken English, it is a stereotype in my book; but it sounds like I am in the minority. Doesn't really matter.

Sooo... Star Wars on Blu-Ray, eh? I don't know about you guys, but I am in a continual state of urinating myself with excitement! This is going to be so totally wizard!

Bingowings said:

Parking taking Frink's posts too seriously and misrepresenting his depiction of racial groups and shoveling a tonne of coins into the meter.

Read that sentence multiple times, and I am still pretty sure it doesn't actually make sense.

I don't think I took his posts too seriously, his defense of his comments shows he intended them seriously. And I fail to see how calling this

image a racial stereotype is "misrepresenting". It is a racial stereotype, plain and simple. I wasn't complaining about that it, calling him out, or saying he shouldn't post them. I just labeled it what it is and now at least two of you are freaking out over it.

This thread is about the quality of audio and video in Criterion transfers, it would be nice if we could get back to that. ;)

Chewtobacca said:

CP3S said:  go post some fist pumps or caricatures that make fun of racial stereotypes in some of your Off-Topic threads.

That's uncalled for.  Frink's GIFs are all about the action or facial expression contained therein, and depict people from a wide range of racial groups, as even a cursory glance at Frink's GIF thread might be expected to reveal.  If you don't like Frink's tendency to go off topic, then that's fair enough, but the above smacks of mudslinging.

It wasn't about his tendency to go off topic, it was the ridiculousness of his complaining that this thread was off topic. He just kind of surprised me, he was the last person I expected to see demanding that if we are not going to keep the discussion in this thread on topic then we need to let the thread die.

The picture he posted in this thread was a caricature of a racial stereotype, calling something what it is is mudslinging now? I wasn't saying I was offended by it or asking him not to post it, I was just suggesting if this thread is bothering him, his time might be more enjoyably spent posting pictures in Off-Topic rather than asking people not to post things he doesn't find personally interesting.

digitalfreaknyc said:

That is pretty much awesome!

TV's Frink said:

Then let the thread die.  I'm not interested in Criterion discussion, so I'd prefer it be in a thread I can safely ignore.

Wow, this is really weird behavior coming from the king of dragging things off topic and pointless ridiculous threads.

You do realize you're not a mod here, right? Seriously, just don't click on this thread and go post some fist pumps or caricatures that make fun of racial stereotypes in some of your Off-Topic threads. Please. Some of us enjoy talking about this kind of thing and prefer to do so without being griped at.

TV's Frink said:

Q: How is babby formed?

I already asked that one a few pages back, Mr. Original.

RedFive said:

A:  Lo-o-o-o-o-ve is presh shus, shoo-doo shooby-do.

Q:  How do you way instain mother?

A: Well, you see, a man takes his... uh... yeah... and he pushes it inside of the woman's... uh... erm... anyway, eventually doing this way results in the release of his... uh... "instain" inside of the mother... and, oh whatever... Nine months later a stork knocks on the door with the delivery of a beautiful healthy newborn baby!

Q: Aren't they suppose to be teaching this stuff in school?

See, maybe, just maybe, I am right and wearing that shirt was a hint that he is really on our side, but has to continue his facade to make his ultimate point which will eventually result in a law that protects the tampering with of our cultural heritage.