Sign In

ChainsawAsh

User Group
Trusted Members
Join date
31-Jul-2004
Last activity
24-Sep-2018
Posts
7510

Post History

Post
#1242843
Topic
SOLO: A Star Wars Story: Fan Edit Ideas - ** SPOILERS & PAJA INSIDE **
Time

RogueLeader said:

The scene of Han as a TIE pilot in-training is very interesting to me, and I’m sort of on the fence if it should be included in any future edits.

On one hand, we never really see Han being a great “ship” pilot until his first job, so it is kind of weird how much of a great pilot he thinks he is when we’ve only seen him drive landspeeders.

By including that scene, we get a glimpse of how Han began learning to become an actual pilot.

On the other hand, the jump cut of the officer saying “You’ll be flying in no time!” to him panicking in the trenches is fantastic. And I’m sure they considered cutting in the first place for pacing reasons.

Actually, the deleted scene ends with the same “flying in no time” gag.

I think it (well, the salvageable bits of it) would be a great scene to include of you’re going with the idea mentioned earlier in this thread of cutting from “What’s your name?” to the title card, then pick back up with Han’s tribubal. This lets you cut the “Han…Solo” bit while retaining a version of the “You’ll be flying in no time” gag, and get to see that Han has actually trained as a pilot at some point.

Post
#1242812
Topic
Star Wars - What is wrong and what is right... Goodbye Magenta
Time

And oh hey, look, over a month ago in this very thread, a film restoration professional was telling you exactly what I’m saying now:

poita said:

Very interesting.
My only suggestion is to calibrate your screen with some test patterns or with a calibration meter, as everything you post is really quite dark overall.

The images do look CRT-like, but the gamma is way off (too dark).

poita said:

BTW, if anyone is interested in Test Patterns, and has netflix, if you fire up netflix and hit “search” and type in “Test Patterns”, they have a really great test pattern channel.

And the same professional, just yesterday:

poita said:

I still feel like your monitor calibration is slightly off

Any and all color work is useless without proper calibration. Full stop.

Post
#1242810
Topic
Star Wars - What is wrong and what is right... Goodbye Magenta
Time

Ronster said:

oh so is the moon blue on your screen?

That’s very much not my point.

I am not talking about intricate or precision things though

Except that 99% of the time you are, down to criticizing very subtle “hue” differences in people’s corrections, many of which no one else sees and can easily be explained by looking at it through an uncalibrated monitor.

I am talking about things that look very different from one another also.

What? What does this mean?

Mainly Special effects.

Still don’t get what you’re trying to say.

Post
#1242766
Topic
Star Wars - What is wrong and what is right... Goodbye Magenta
Time

Ronster said:

ChainsawAsh said:

If you can’t calibrate your monitor, you shouldn’t be doing any color work or commenting on anyone else’s.

I have followed these instructions, and It would seem that my panel is very Bright compared to my old TV for HDR content. So I have adjusted this now.

https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/samsung/mu6100/settings

That’s not how you calibrate a TV. You need to use industry standard test patterns in the lighting conditions you’ll be working under.

I have copied the white balance in this but I can not change hardly anything because it’s running a PC and this will not allow you to have Movie mode because it only allows Standard or Dynamic modes.

This is something you should take up with Samsung to be honest.

No. Just no. Let me rephrase my earlier statement:

If you can’t calibrate your monitor using industry standard test patterns, you shouldn’t be doing any color work or commenting on anyone else’s until you own a monitor that can be accurately calibrated and have done so.

Until then, none of your “corrections” have any value.

Sorry to be so blunt about it, but it’s the absolute truth. And your lack of ability to properly calibrate your equipment means statements like…

So the original Matte has no Blue moon…

…are completely useless because you’re not looking at it at the same baseline everyone else that has calibrated monitors is.

Post
#1242730
Topic
Science Fiction or Space Fantasy - what is Star Wars
Time

DominicCobb said:

Just pure lunacy. It is one thing to disagree about what the primary genre is, but to pretend like it is only one genre, with no elements of any other genre present is just ridiculous. Either you’re being willfully ignorant/obtuse, or you seriously need educate yourself better on Lucas’s influences. He wasn’t just taking from “space operas,” and I think you know it.

It’s true. All of it.

Post
#1242622
Topic
Doctor Who
Time

I was never a fan of Time of the Doctor being made a Christmas episode. Then they did the same thing again with Twice Upon a Time, but at least then it was a little more of a one-off with the Twelfth Doctor hanging out with an exaggerated caricature of the First Doctor instead of spending 90 minutes wrapping up all his loose storylines.

That being said, I actually like Time as a finale to Smith’s era, it was just dumb to make it a Christmas special instead of its own thing.

Post
#1242555
Topic
Last movie seen
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

Just encouraged me to order Close Encounters. The 4k set is only $15 bucks right now on Amazon.

That’s what got me to do it. I wanted all the different versions and the features in one case and that’s what I got.

Dek Rollins said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Okay. I think I’ll watch the theatrical first and then the director’s cut.

I can’t argue with this, though I will second Ash’s statement about the DC being the best cut. I actually haven’t watched the theatrical in a while since I watch the DC every time. Should go back to that some time.

My reasoning with watching the theatrical first is because it sounds like both cuts are great, the latter is just an improvement. So I might as well see it how it was originally first. I just wanted to make sure that it wasn’t like Bladerunner where there is very little reason other than curiosity to watch the theatrical cut.

Yep, this is pretty much it. Another thing is the TC has some more comedy than the other two versions.

If I love the movie then I’ll check out the SE too, but I hate studio meddling so I’ll save that one for last.

PLEASE DON’T

But really, the extended ending in the SE can potentially ruin the movie depending on how you feel about it. As a big fan of this movie, I actually regret watching that ending. I’d say just turn it off before the end.

I don’t know, if I really like the movie then my curiosity is going to get me to at least look up the ending. Even if I hated it I don’t think that it could ruin the movie for me. We’ll see.

Watch one of the other versions first. The SE ending keeps going after the TC and DC versions end. Ask yourself if you really want to see an interpretation of what happens after.

Post
#1242539
Topic
Doctor Who
Time

towne32 said:

Handman said:

I wouldn’t recommend starting with Matt Smith or Capaldi. Moffat tried really hard to appeal to long-time fans that most episodes are completely incomprehensible to anyone unfamiliar with the show. The whole extended family was over and we ended up watching that year’s Christmas Special… no one knew what the hell was going on.

I would say starting with the revived show at the beginning, with “Rose”, is your best bet. However, I strongly recommend checking out the original show at some point.

Do you mean Matt Smith’s first Christmas special? What outside knowledge was required for that one? The companions have their own backstory, but they’re basically written out of most of the episode (and all you need to know is that they’re on a honeymoon, which you’re told). It’s actually the episode that got some of my family watching the show, and I think of it as one of the most standalone ones there is.

And there would be even less chance of confusion coming off of season 5. I’m struggling to think about how season 5, itself, could be incomprehensible to a newcomer. You miss River’s first story, but she’s reintroduced. Other than that, not much attention is paid to RTD’s storylines.

I agree with this.

Post
#1242519
Topic
If you need to B*tch about something... this is the place
Time

The closest they’ve ever done to including a future Doctor in a story is the brief glimpse of Capaldi’s eyebrows in the 50th Anniversary special.

Though I have had an idea for a concept for a Doctor’s final season that would double as the next Doctor’s first season by introducing an amnesiac future Doctor as a companion, with the reveal happening when the Doctor regenerates at the end of the season…

Post
#1242515
Topic
Last movie seen
Time

Either theatrical or Director’s Cut. The Special Edition has a studio-mandated extended ending that’s garbage - it was forced on Spielberg as a condition for giving him the budget to shoot new scenes.

The theatrical cut is still good, but feels slightly incomplete. The Director’s Cut is the best, most balanced version IMO, taking the new material shot from the Special Edition, restoring some theatrical scenes that were cut in the SE, and restoring the theatrical cut ending. But it’s not like the material missing from the theatrical cut completely cripples the movie the way it does in something like Kingdom of Heaven, for instance.

Post
#1242514
Topic
If you need to B*tch about something... this is the place
Time

Post Praetorian said:

Warbler said:

ChainsawAsh said:

And yet people still whine about the ST being “SJW” this and “Feminazi” that. Just like people are bitching about DW having an “agenda” now.

and I am sure that every single person that is upset with the ST is upset for only one reason: a female lead. Yeah, right.

Also, neither Leia nor Padme were the leads in their trilogies.

come on, both were major stars in their trilogies. One can argue that Leia outranked both Luke and Han in the Rebellion. Padme was the leader of a whole planet and a Senator.

Similarly to how DW has had strong female characters for decades in companions like Barbara, Liz Shaw, Sarah Jane, Ace, Amy Pond, and so on and so forth, but God forbid you cast a woman in the lead role…

They didn’t just cast a women, they turned a character that had been make for over 50 years into a female. They didn’t do it for the sake of the show, they did it for PC reasons

Likely it was done for both reasons simultaneously…it appears the newest obsession is the temptation to rewrite much of history (pardon, herstory 😉) so as to be ritualistically inclusive of the modern narrative…though this is not all negative, it does have a tendency to becomes particularly grating when it appears to be overtly obvious.

A female lead is refreshing in many instances and can be quite satisfying to watch, but it can also be remarkably distasteful when the reason for it coming about appears to be the result of a cynical attempt to woo a modern audience with the now dully expected gender-reversal reveal. This is not novel–it was preordained…and in being so it loses its effect. It appears more of a trite pandering and devalued attempt to ride the subset of a particular sentiment rather than a truly insightful opportunity to portray a woman in a dominant role.

It would have been a vastly improved position to have given a more realistic phasing out of the old male doctor in favour of this new preeminent character rather than this sudden forced overtaking of another’s position. This is because it would then have allowed the woman in question to have shown her proper qualifications for being so chosen and respected…it would have allowed her to essentially arrive as her own person, with as strong and independent a stride and mannerism as she should desire…whereas currently it appears merely as though she might have been placed in full force through an obvious propping up, as though affirmative action might be considered the only possible means of providing a proper central role for a woman in these circumstances…unnecessarily cheapening the experience for many, rather than providing a healthy and welcome change…

I don’t understand this at all. The show has eased audiences into the idea of a female Doctor by having other Time Lord characters swap genders when regenerating over the past few years. And the nature of how actor changes happen in the show means it has to be sudden - the Doctor is dying and must regenerate to survive. I don’t know how you’d go about “easing” any new actor into the Doctor role, let alone a woman. You can’t just introduce a female actor and then have them take over the Doctor role. That’s not how the show (or the character) works.

Post
#1242415
Topic
Doctor Who
Time

Capaldi is fantastic, but most of his stories rely somewhat heavily on knowledge of earlier episodes, especially in his better seasons (9 and 10).

I’d probably recommend Mummy on the Orient Express as a Capaldi episode for a newcomer, though it is pretty heavy on Clara arc stuff. Listen is another excellent one but, again, a bit Clara arc heavy, and also a little reliant on overall series lore.

I don’t like recommending Blink to people as a first episode because it’s a Doctor-lite episode, and as such doesn’t really represent the show as a whole. But it is an amazing episode.

Post
#1242358
Topic
If you need to B*tch about something... this is the place
Time

Possessed said:

Warbler said:

Possessed said:

You realize he was just parodying you when you say you aren’t going to engage with insert poster right?

Yes, this upcoming season is the first time the Doctor will be female. Until the Master regenerated into a female, no Timelord had ever switched genders in the history of the show.

Yeah I understand that but is there any legitimate reason why it shouldn’t be besides that it hasn’t before? I mean if there’s a new doctor all the time why can’t it be female? It’s not like a regular character switching gender.

There’s no legitimate reason why it shouldn’t be, no. See me above post (that I seem to have posted at the same time you posted this one).

Post
#1242356
Topic
If you need to B*tch about something... this is the place
Time

Possessed said:

You realize he was just parodying you when you say you aren’t going to engage with insert poster right?

While this is mostly true, I did also mean it.

Also I must admit my understanding of DW is very limited, but HAS it always been a male? I thought it was kinda like a trill. Sure it always HAS been a male, but does it HAVE to be? I mean it’s not like Luke was suddenly a woman in the ST or anything, doesn’t the very gimmick of the series enable the doctor to be a woman sometimes?

There’s been no reason why the Doctor can’t regenerate as a female. There have been references peppered into the show since 2005 (the Ninth Doctor explaining that he might even look like a different species after he regenerates was taken to imply he could change genders, then in 2010 the Eleventh Doctor thought he was a girl until he felt his Adam’s apple, Eleven explicitly said that the Corsair had been a woman in one regeneration in 2011, Missy was revealed to be a female regeneration of the Master in 2014, and we see an on-screen male-to-female regeneration in 2015). It was also considered many times in the 1980s.

Yet it’s “ruining the show” or something now that the Doctor is a female, just because (s)he never has been before.