Wow, late to the news but Blade Runner 2049??!! Harmy that’s amazing!
I had no idea he looked so much like Ryan Gosling!
One more thing: if Despecialized went all soft-sub, that would require changes to most subs. Not just foreign subs where translations of alien dialogue would shift back down to the bottom of the frame, but also English subs, which currently skip over the alien dialogue entirely. English subs in particular would need the most work, since you’d need to merge the standard-appearance subtitles for the rest of the film with the theatrical-appearance subtitles for Greedo’s dialogue. We’d also need to consider if we want to use theatrical-appearance alien subs in the other languages where we have them (Italian, French, German). It’s all doable, but it’s significant.
V3.0, if anything warrants a fresh take on subtitles, this would be it. Finally fully Despecialized in “Full HD”, might as well give all the subtitles some extra touch up while at it… and it’ll take Harmy a while to produce v3.0 anyway, so it isn’t like there’s an imminent time crunch to worry about.
You underestimate the ability of Internet arguments to fail to resolve 😉
Let’s say I go to the Italian preservation thread with this, and it goes like this:
- Those theatrical Italian subs use a weird font and the translation is bad. Don’t use them, the new translations are much better.
- Those theatrical subtitles are just like I remember from my childhood. There’s even a typo. Use them!
- What? You’ve GOT to fix the typo. I was just assuming you’d naturally fix the typo.
- What are we doing, making a new SE? Leave the typo alone.
And so on. Now repeat for each language. It could take a while 😉
One more thing: if Despecialized went all soft-sub, that would require changes to most subs. Not just foreign subs where translations of alien dialogue would shift back down to the bottom of the frame, but also English subs, which currently skip over the alien dialogue entirely. English subs in particular would need the most work, since you’d need to merge the standard-appearance subtitles for the rest of the film with the theatrical-appearance subtitles for Greedo’s dialogue. We’d also need to consider if we want to use theatrical-appearance alien subs in the other languages where we have them (Italian, French, German). It’s all doable, but it’s significant.
if I cut the subs directly from one frame of a 35mm scan, could that be turned into a soft sub?
I’ve already done this for Jedi, using 1080p image files you sent me as a source, remember? 😉 For Star Wars, I had to hack together something on my own from another source, and it’s not quite as nice. Both of these soft subs are already created and in the current version of Project Threepio. The filenames are ROTJ-eng-alien-35mm.sup and SW-eng-alien-35mm.sup – feel free to try them out.
If you have new image files for Star Wars, they could be turned into soft subs in fairly short order. I’d certainly prefer to use your image files as a starting point for both films.
The problems with soft subs are minor, but on a theatrical fidelity scale, they might be big enough. Soft subs have no gate weave, moving grain/dirt, etc, and attempting to simulate this through an animated sequence of subtitle images is very badly supported by players. The BD-SUP subtitle format uses a strange timestamp-at-the-wrong-framerate+framecount time specification method, which means it’s possible that soft subs will not appear and disappear on exactly the right frame. But for most purposes, they would be indistinguishable from burnt-in subs to even fairly picky viewers.
To be honest, though, I still prefer burnt-in for these particular films.
EDIT: Oh, and if you’re making new image files for Star Wars, try not to lose the positioning info. i.e. the best way to get them is to get the subtitles floating at the right location in a transparent 1920x1080 image.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/us/politics/trump-mueller-special-counsel-russia.html
President Trump ordered the firing last June of Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel overseeing the Russia investigation, according to four people told of the matter, but ultimately backed down after the White House counsel threatened to resign rather than carry out the directive.
The West Wing confrontation marks the first time Mr. Trump is known to have tried to fire the special counsel. Mr. Mueller learned about the episode in recent months as his investigators interviewed current and former senior White House officials in his inquiry into whether the president obstructed justice.
Amid the first wave of news media reports that Mr. Mueller was examining a possible obstruction case, the president began to argue that Mr. Mueller had three conflicts of interest that disqualified him from overseeing the investigation, two of the people said.
First, he claimed that a dispute years ago over fees at Trump National Golf Club in Sterling, Va., had prompted Mr. Mueller, the F.B.I. director at the time, to resign his membership. The president also said Mr. Mueller could not be impartial because he had most recently worked for the law firm that previously represented the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Finally, the president said, Mr. Mueller had been interviewed to return as the F.B.I. director the day before he was appointed special counsel in May.
Oh that wacky wayback machine:
http://therightscoop.com/nobody-at-the-white-house-is-talking-about-firing-mueller-marc-short/
So when they said “You crazy conspiracy-minded liberals, nobody’s even thinking of firing Mueller”, they just left off some words at the end. “…anymore.” would work well to make it not a lie anymore, but “…this week.” would probably make it actually truthful.
Oh, and this whole article now rings pretty much false as crap:
http://www.businessinsider.com/mcconnell-congress-mueller-trump-russia-2017-11
Graham, who co-sponsored one of the bills aimed at protecting Mueller’s independence, said after the indictments that he did not “feel an urgent need to pass that law until you show me a reason Mr. Mueller is in jeopardy.”
Wonder if they’ll reconsider that determination now. No, I didn’t think so either. After all, they talked him down once. What are the chances Trump will try to do a crazy self-incriminating thing against the advise of his staff more than once? Oh.
I think a Despecialized Edition without subtitles for the alien speech would go against the purpose of the Despecialized Edition’s mission.
Indeed. I completely understand the desire to have it look right in one’s native language. But a good amount of work went into the making and rendering of the text by (at least) Harmy, Catbus, and me. And it can’t be pulled off as effectively with a subtitle stream alone.
Maybe Catbus can answer: Are there packs of subtitles available for just the Greedo text (presumably rendered in the top portion of the screen) that people could mux in with their dub of choice?
Actually, most dubs just dub over the Greedo and Jabba lines, so no subtitles are needed in those languages. For a few languages, though, they do not dub over those lines, so those lines would need to be subtitled.
Project Threepio includes “titles only” subtitles in these languages, which subtitle only the Jabba/Greedo lines, and/or the crawl and other onscreen text like the tractor beam controls. They are designed to go with the English video and the dub. To work around conflicts with onscreen text, the subtitles are shifted to the top of the frame (so for Greedo/Jabba, you’d have two sets of subtitles, with the one in your language at the top of the screen). It’s not ideal, but it works to provide subtitles without compromising the theatrical fidelity of the Despecialized Editions. As far as I know, these movies were never shown theatrically without some sort of burnt-in subtitles during the Greedo/Jabba scenes.
Utilities are included with Project Threepio to shift these subtitles back down to the bottom of the frame, to accompany subtitle-free video, but you’d have to get the subtitle-free video elsewhere. Also, for a few lucky languages, we have subtitles designed to match the font, size, and placement and exact original text of the subtitles that ran theatrically in those countries, wherever we have a reference. But again, you have to provide the subtitle-free video to overlay them onto (or just get the German/French/Italian versions of the trilogy when they’re available).
If you’re curious, download the complete Project Threepio. It’s a lot more than just a bunch of SRT files. Follow the link in my signature for the project discussion thread.
EDIT: yoda-sama is right. Seamless branching is the only technically correct way to address this problem, allowing theatrically faithful burnt-in subtitles for some viewers and not others. But it’s very hard to do right, and we have plenty of projects that simply do alternate video altogether to achieve the same thing.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/hating-gerrymandering-is-easy-fixing-it-is-harder/
The difficulty in defining what qualifies as a gerrymander is why states with bipartisan redistricting commissions end up generally being successful. i.e. if no plan can pass without buy-in from both parties, then it doesn’t matter what sort of crazy gerrymandering strategies are invented – as long as the other party’s not completely clueless, they can block it.
The redistricting commissions aren’t perfect – their biggest flaw is that they’re not constitutionally protected, and if one party controls the government, they can simply disband the commission by party-line vote, and revert to the old system. But aside from that, it’s the difference between bipartisan and nonpartisan. If both parties benefit from disenfranchising a population (say, a geographically concentrated third party), then nothing about the design of the redistricting commission would stop it. And shenanigans are still possible, albeit at a much more subtle level. That said, they are so much better than the systems used in most states, I’m in favor of them.
I think the hangup on self-driving cars will be elsewhere. The tech will work, the price will be decent, the people will be alright with it. But the lawyers won’t be able to entirely figure out the liability issues.
Oh, and this.
Sater is one of those lesser-known names to watch for. He is deeply and centrally involved in, well, anything he’s involved in. A very big fish, with extensive knowledge of his …ahem… “business”. If he’s truly cooperating now (and that’s still unclear but more promising than before), that means the investigation could likely spread to dozens of new high-to-top-level targets. If Sater completely flips and is proactively cooperative, they’re going to need to build a new prison. The Feds will likely try to cut a deal with him, as they have before – if he gets charged with something minimal like lying to investigators, there’s your sign.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/1/18/16905794/marijuana-legalization-polls
Only 16 percent of Americans favored keeping the current policy. About 29 percent backed only medical legalization, 5 percent backed decriminalization, and 49 percent backed full legalization. The remaining 1 percent were not sure.
Even among Republicans, who tend to be more conservative on drug policy issues, current federal marijuana law fared poorly: Only 25 percent of Republican voters supported keeping the policy as is, 36 percent backed medical marijuana, 2 percent backed decriminalization, and 36 percent backed full legalization. The majority of Republican voters were for some form of legalization — medical or recreational.
…
And the great majority of voters oppose current federal marijuana law. This kind of result — 83 percent of Americans choosing anything but a current policy — is exceedingly rare in any kind of polling.
Those are insane numbers. 83%!
In the membrane.
CatBus said:
As far as the general public is concerned, it’s been replaced.If they know at all. I think most don’t even know what they have is putrefied.
“That’s funny. I used to think these movies were really good when I was a kid. It turns out they’re pretty meh. Oh well, I guess I’ve outgrown them.”
answering some questions in a face-to-face interview
Whoops.
The Democrats would be a more liberal party if the electorate were more liberal.
IMO the positions of both parties have drifted right to attract donors, which are unfortunately worth quite a bit more than voters.
This. Since “Citizens United”, it’s getting harder to distinguish when a politician is trying to attract voters, and when they are trying to attract funding. You’re right it’s more usually the latter, since that generally leads to the former (sadly).
Hasn’t it always been practically impossible to tell?
In many cases, yes. But there’s some “They Live glasses”-style giveaways. Like every time Mr. Environmentalist Al Gore said the words “Clean Coal” during the Presidential debates, he was very clearly angling for Energy Sector funding.
But IMO there is a difference between cashing in on an available property (Star Wars merchandising and tie-ins pre-1997), and cashing in on the fading collective memory of a property that nobody can actually have anymore (Star Wars merchandising and tie-ins 1997 and onward).
I don’t see what the difference is between cashing in on OOT merch and cashing on on SE/PT/ST merch. It’s all merch.
Pre-1997, you could buy the merch AND see the thing you loved that motivated the purchase. Post-1997, you can just buy the merch based on a memory of loving something a few decades back. To me, that’s a notable distinction.
But as I said, that distinction only applies when people can’t acquire the originally loved thing. But I can. People can. It’s been mentioned in more than a few articles. Whether they want to bother or not is up to them.
Meanwhile, if I mention loving the original Original Trilogy, I get called a “purist” by my friends and acquaintances, so there we are. If people don’t care, they won’t bother, and that’s on them.
There are also people who care and don’t know. The idea that it might be available from another channel other than Lucasfilm may seem too preposterous to consider, let alone actively seek out. I don’t think that’s on them. That mindset works perfectly well for every other film.
I prefer thinking of him as “moist pathetic”.
But IMO there is a difference between cashing in on an available property (Star Wars merchandising and tie-ins pre-1997), and cashing in on the fading collective memory of a property that nobody can actually have anymore (Star Wars merchandising and tie-ins 1997 and onward).
I don’t see what the difference is between cashing in on OOT merch and cashing on on SE/PT/ST merch. It’s all merch.
Pre-1997, you could buy the merch AND see the thing you loved that motivated the purchase. Post-1997, you can just buy the merch based on a memory of loving something a few decades back. To me, that’s a notable distinction.
Admittedly, seven people do like the SE, and they can buy the merch and see the thing they loved that motivated the purchase, so it’s not universal.
I don’t get George’s lesser blame either. Studios and publishing houses don’t have the best record of respecting the wishes of the creator before something becomes a hit, but afterwards, they tend to follow the most ridiculous art-destroying notions as long as they can even theoretically be tied to the creator’s intent. So George doesn’t even have to contractually force Disney to keep the OOT off the shelves – all he has to do is clearly indicate the way he’d prefer them to be dealt with, and studio deference will take care of the rest, even long after he’s gone.
But IMO there is a difference between cashing in on an available property (Star Wars merchandising and tie-ins pre-1997), and cashing in on the fading collective memory of a property that nobody can actually have anymore (Star Wars merchandising and tie-ins 1997 and onward).
The Democrats would be a more liberal party if the electorate were more liberal.
IMO the positions of both parties have drifted right to attract donors, which are unfortunately worth quite a bit more than voters.
I don’t care about the metaphor. He said he won’t watch any new Star Wars until we get the OOT.
But we did get the OOT. Just not in a purchasable form from official sources.
I don’t see how the argument of not having the OOT yet makes sense at this point, given that the “guerilla restorationist” himself even actively posts on these forums.
Again, just taking the metaphor and running with it…
Let’s say your beloved Barbara became a zombie. You have memories of Barbara, photos, letters, even videos that can remind you of her. You got a chance to know Barbara, and for that you are forever thankful.
But the neighbor kid down the street just got eaten by Barbara. The only Barbara he ever knew was the zombie Barbara.
So when you’re asking if “we” ever got the true Barbara, that depends if you’re just talking about yourself or are including the neighbor kid down the street.
TL;DR: The OOT is more than just unavailable commercially. As far as the general public is concerned, it’s been replaced.
Except it’s more like Barbara is still alive but just got some work done, and she never did anything like eat anyone, she just acted a little rude a few times.
The old Barbara was the real monster. She’d shoot people just for nothing more than being moments away from killing her. Now she doesn’t fire back until after she’s given her would-be assassin a sporting chance. And it’s of enormous help to her when dodging to have the partially detached zombie neck.
Quite possibly. But if Democratic Party voters overwhelmingly support one position and their elected officials overwhelmingly support another, which is the position of the Democratic Party? I’d say the latter.
Meanwhile, the shithole deepens.
Disagree. IMO media has lots of biases, and they all affect political coverage:
Some of these conflict with each other, but that’s how biases are. I’d say given these, and the types of stories the media’s been running for the past few decades, the major media tend to have a solidly conservative bias (disagree with Mrebo), one that often but not always aligns with the Democratic Party (agree with Mrebo). Media with more of a corporate (Wall Street Journal) or tabloid (Washington Times) lean will have an more pronounced conservative bias, and align more closely with the Republican Party.
But that was all before Trump. Now you’d have to go to something more like The Crusader to represent where Republican elected officials are today, and since the Democrats have also lurched right, they are probably now getting 50/50 favorable coverage from the WSJ.
I don’t care about the metaphor. He said he won’t watch any new Star Wars until we get the OOT.
But we did get the OOT. Just not in a purchasable form from official sources.
I don’t see how the argument of not having the OOT yet makes sense at this point, given that the “guerilla restorationist” himself even actively posts on these forums.
Again, just taking the metaphor and running with it…
Let’s say your beloved Barbara became a zombie. You have memories of Barbara, photos, letters, even videos that can remind you of her. You got a chance to know Barbara, and for that you are forever thankful.
But the neighbor kid down the street just got eaten by Barbara. The only Barbara he ever knew was the zombie Barbara.
So when you’re asking if “we” ever got the true Barbara, that depends if you’re just talking about yourself or are including the neighbor kid down the street.
TL;DR: The OOT is more than just unavailable commercially. As far as the general public is concerned, it’s been replaced.
They voted for a budget extension in exchange for a non-binding promise to just keep talking?
Ah, there’s the spineless Democratic Party I know!
I think it’s more of a matter of holding a finger to the wind and changing their position when it doesn’t seem to be popular. Same conclusion.
The New York Times and MSNBC were laying the blame pretty squarely at the Democrats’ feet, though.
Hey wait, I thought Mrebo proved that all media were just Democratic Party lapdogs though.
Maybe he just reads different articles. There’s lots of Op-Eds out there. Also, there was an infuriating amount of meaningless “Who will the voters blame?” articles, which leaned toward the Republicans without the media having to take a position at all.
They voted for a budget extension in exchange for a non-binding promise to just keep talking?
Ah, there’s the spineless Democratic Party I know!
I think it’s more of a matter of holding a finger to the wind and changing their position when it doesn’t seem to be popular. Same conclusion.
The New York Times and MSNBC were laying the blame pretty squarely at the Democrats’ feet, though. Maybe that’s an audience demographic they just couldn’t afford to alienate.
Reminds me of some friends of mine who were roommates once. A co-worker of theirs was insinuating that they were a couple, and another co-worker stepped in to put a stop to it. She said “Can’t two gay men be roommates without people just assuming that they’re a couple?”
The punchline is below:
Neither of them are gay.