CatBus

AntcuFaalb said:

What exactly did Harrison and Carrie not do? Their acting in ROTJ is A-OK by me.

I actually think neither Han nor Leia as scripted in ROTJ gave them much to work with.  It's a lackluster performance IMO, but they'd turned into lackluster characters, so IMO you can't blame the actors too much for failing to make them shine.

Fisher did great in SW, switching on a dime between damsel in distress and sassy take-charge heroine.  Then in ESB, she was a respectable leader fighting with her secret passion.  In ROTJ, she was all damsel all the time, sometimes in distress, sometimes not.  Bleh, no complexity at all.  Good enough for your storybook princess, maybe, not for Leia.

Solo was the can-you-trust-him-or-not scoundrel in SW, where you weren't even sure he'd show up for the final battle.  And then in ESB he hatched brilliant escape plans one minute and complained about the hyperdrive not being his fault the next--strategic genius or overgrown child, who could tell?  In ROTJ, he... well, he leads a mission, and he does use trickery to accomplish it, yes, but he's always a good guy.  Even worse, a reliable good guy.  Yawn.  Even Lando, who pulled a shift as the can-you-trust-him-or-not scoundrel in ESB, skips straight to reliable good guy in this one.

My opinion on that anyway.  What I liked about Star Wars was that, while it certainly was based on storybook archetypes as old as dirt, it tweaked them enough to keep it interesting.  ROTJ had some good moments and I actually enjoy it, but Han and Leia were not the best parts.

poita said:

This leads to interesting problems, leia looking like a hooker, Luke looking like a wax dummy

Oddly, in the Holiday Special, it's Leia looking like a wax dummy and Luke looking like a hooker.

msycamore said:

In the end this is a matter of opinion and taste I guess but do expect to see stuff that was never intended to be seen that's visible on the O-neg but was never visible on prints. This is something studios recently have realized when releasing some of their classic catalog titles, where they instead aim for something that is more representative of what would have been seen in theaters instead.

Generational detail loss is fairly easy for the end-user to simulate.  If I'm ever watching a movie that appears too sharp, I can switch my player's output to 720p or even 480p.  That blurs up the picture pretty nicely--not necessarily to EXACTLY the same level as theatrical prints of that particular film, but pretty close.

There are some advantages to going back to sources earlier than projection prints other than more detail.  Assuming nothing else goes awry with the Blu-ray, I think OCN-based transfers are usually a good choice for the studios (but there are always exceptions).  It's much easier for the end-user to "fix" a too-detailed Blu-ray than a wrong-colored/DNR'd Blu-ray.

bkev said:

Also the fact that it's clearly -1 on the account.

Now, now.  It's all about plausible deniability.

xhonzi said:

imperialscum said:

Sad thing is seeing comments of people after seeing the videos such as: "I didn't realise before how flawed the prequels are" etc.

He didn't change my opinion, but he did inform it.

Not to mention, particularly if the movie is dull, you tend to forget details about movies you don't like.  The Phantom Menace came out the same year as The Thirteenth Floor.  I saw both, thought both were incredibly tedious, promptly forgot most of them, and never saw them again.  So both were crap movies seen once over a decade ago.  Why should I be able to deconstruct them myself to demonstrate their flaws so many years later?

I can barely remember who was even in The Thirteenth Floor or what the plot was.  The only reason I remember more about The Phantom Menace is because of the neverending merchandising blitz, and hanging around Star Wars forums.  If it wasn't for OT.com, I wouldn't have even remembered that Yoda was in The Phantom Menace, let alone a creepy puppet.

But if some guy made a funny video explaining exactly what was horrible about The Thirteenth Floor, I might see it, because I know it was bad but no longer remember precisely how bad.  Worked for Showgirls.  And Showgirls was better than The Phantom Menace.

And FWIW, I thought the RLM review was pretty hit-and-miss.  I didn't watch it again either.

Brooks said:

I'm confused about this.  The detail lost in the generational losses between the negative and the theatrical prints mean that a theatrical print scanned at 4k or higher would be equivalent in detail to the negative scanned at 1080p?

There are a lot of factors, but it could often be less than 1080p.  For example, if the film uses a lot of opticals or composites... the Mos Eisley flyby is never gonna have 1080 lines of detail.

Asaki said:

I just don't understand how mixing it with BluRay footage would make it look better.

It's not entirely about looks (although the comments above about the Blu-ray being based on earlier-generation sources are true).  Even if this thing gets released and it looks better than every other video source out there, it's very unlikely to be GOUT-synced, so alternate audio tracks, etc will not work out-of-the-box with it.  Having someone GOUT-sync this video would be worth it, even if no other video sources were used.

Leonardo said:

I would recommend Google Drive, it seems to fit all your requirements. 

Thanks, I'm testing this out now.

Does anyone have any recommendations for file hosting services?

My requirements:

1) Web-based upload and download, no client required.

2) Anonymous downloads permitted.

3) Not too obnoxious with the ad and attempts to get you to download software (iLivid, etc).

4) Decent file sizes permitted for non-paid accounts.

I know I'm probably a few years too late on this bandwagon, but Rapidshare just got too obnoxious to use anymore.

timdiggerm said:

As much as I think the team_negative_one/-1 posting style is absurd, I have to ask: Which forum rule does it violate?

Multiple accounts for one person?

Er, except I'm totally convinced -1 is two totally different people with the exact same idiosyncratic posting style. Wait, I mean Team, er, oh, screw it.

Moth3r said:

I've fixed the formatting of your posts above, but I don't have the patience to do this on a regular basis.

Hmm. I wonder how this will play out...

rockin said:

I'm not really sure what to make of the Superman movies.

IMO, at least for the first film, the blue is too shifted to teal and the reds are too saturated.  Other than that it's actually pretty good.

thejediknighthusezni said:

It's a pity they were just too far above it to provide recognition.

Yeah, it's not like they gave Star Wars more Oscars than they gave Annie Hall or anyth... er, okay, it turns out they did.

But showering Star Wars with Oscars like they did doesn't count as recog... er, okay, it does.

What was your point again?  Six Oscars and a Special Achievement Award doesn't count?  They just give six Oscars to every movie that gets made that year? Maybe you thought Star Wars should have swept every single Oscar category?  According to those standards, those dirty elites haven't recognized a single movie EVER!  They are too busy watching opera and eating caviar!

They are so DOWN on Star Wars!  All the Oscars they gave it weren't even real gold I bet!

DominicCobb said:

Look, I know my Oscar history which means I know what kind of bullshit it is. But when you're movie wins 11 Oscars (tied for the most ever actually) then IT HAS TO BE GOOD. That's all I'm saying.

Titanic got 11, Forrest Gump got 6, Gladiator and Braveheart got 5.  All were terrible.

I wouldn't say the number of Oscars is predictive of anything but commercial success.  And Shakespeare in Love was better than Saving Private Ryan (although neither deserved to win that year), because the former had some mild entertainment value beyond the first ten minutes.

Is there anyone I didn't manage to piss off with this post?  I'm sure I can do better.

TV's Frink said:

CatBus said:

To quote Frink: "SHUN!"

I stole it.

SHUN!

To quote Frink: "SHUN!"

Admittedly, I prefer his earlier, funnier movies ;)

L0conut said:

What's the difference between Project Threepio and Harmy's versions, if you don't mind my asking? 

Project Threepio is an ongoing subtitle project not tied to any particular preservation.  When Harmy wants subtitles for his project, he gets the latest subtitles that are available at the time.  So Harmy's subs in DeEd 2.1 are equivalent to Project Threepio 5.1, which had the problems I was talking about earlier.

There have been two versions of Project Threepio released since DeEd 2.1, and DeEd 2.5 will include those updates (including fixes for the VLC issue).

You can click the image link in my signature to see the discussion thread, including release notes for each version.

If you're using VLC to watch 2.1, there was a VLC-specific bug in the subs (flashing for one frame) which is fixed in the latest version of Project Threepio.

To see the ones in 2.1, you'd need to use MPC or a hardware player.

roback214 said:

When will the version 2.5?

Very soon.  But it's been "very soon" for a while ;)

Beyond that, we just don't know.  Would love to hear that file, thanks!

roback214 said:

hi!

I Have the first spansih (mexican) dubbing... sampler here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubTVG1imwYo&feature=youtu.be

I live in Chile, South America, sorry if my English is not very good. I have the audio of the 3 movies. I'm adjusting to the versions "Despecialized"
hopefully be of any use.
The audio comes from old betamax tapes recorded at the time that the television broadcast here in Chile.

 

That's great--many prefer the Latin American Spanish dubs over the Castilian ones!  Once you have synced audio for all three movies, send me the links!  I'd love to hear them!

EDIT: And if you finish syncing audio for the first one before the others, let me know too.

Well I can imagine who the "Matt" he's thanking for help is...

That said, I'm curious what the actual adjustments anyone used to improve this disc were.  Heck, an avisynth script would be great...

Laserschwert said:

Since I'm gonna need the credits for TESB and ROTJ anyway (unlike SW the German versions of those still had the English credits), I can recreate them. If someone has proper captures of the VHS releases to use as templates ;)

GOUT isn't good enough?

EDIT: You mean German credits, right. Okay, following now.

I think if I recall correctly, Laserschwert did the main work/rendering and the rest of the OT.com community provided anal-retentive copy editing and color commentary.

Also, was the one on your Jedi 1.0 authentic or re-created?  Would it be omitted in a 2.x?

red5-626 said:

This is looking good.
ESB first? OK.
I will ask this.
With ROTJ in the works
is there a chance of getting
Lapti Nek and Yub Nub cleaned up
 early so Harmy can use them?

 And Vader's eyebrows.