logo Sign In

ChainsawAsh

This user has been banned.

User Group
Banned Members
Join date
31-Jul-2004
Last activity
24-Dec-2020
Posts
8,679

Post History

Post
#452870
Topic
The Star Wars Original Trilogy on RCA's CED Format
Time

clone_Wolf said:

And I certainly believe that back in the olden days (77...), films were

spliced from many different sources before being sent out for copying,

for release to theaters.

Well, that's just not true.

Here's how it works:

The final locked cut is finished using workprint, and a cut list is made.  The cut list is a text list that has, in feet+frames, every shot in the locked cut, in the order they exist on the original camera reels.  A second list (sometimes this information is included in the same list) has all the same shots in the order they exist in the cut, in feet+frames for each reel of the locked cut, so they know which order to put things in.

The negative cutter then takes the original camera negatives, cuts them up according to the cut list, and reassembles them to match the final locked workprint - this is called "conforming."

Sometimes this was done using A/B reels - in this process, shot 1 is on reel A, while that same portion on reel B is blank leader.  Shot 2 is on reel B, while that same portion on reel A is blank leader.  Any time there is a dissolve, the first shot of the dissolve is on one reel, overlapping the second shot on the other reel - the overlap is where the dissolve will happen.

Reel A is printed onto a third piece of film, then reel B is printed onto the same piece of film.  This is the interpositive (IP), as printing a negative to a new piece of film creates a positive.  Any dissolves are done by programming the machine to turn the light down for the duration of the dissolve on the first shot, and turning the light up for the duration of the dissolve on the second shot.

This method gives you a seamless IP that won't have splice marks of any kind, and was often used for anamorphic films.

HOWEVER, as splice marks are clearly visible on pre-SE transfers of Star Wars, the conform must have been done using a single-reel method.

This method is basically just splicing the negative together to conform to the locked workprint.  Any dissolves have to be optically printed, making a new negative that is two generations away from the original quality (as you have to make an IP first, then an internegative from that - the internegative is what gets spliced in with the rest of the o-neg).  The same thing would have been done for the wipes and any composite effects (lightsabers, bluescreen shots, et cetera).

What does all this have to do with the topic?

Well, the audio mix is done separately, using a copy of the workprint.  This is later married to the IP created during conforming, which creates the master negative that release prints are struck from.

This is where all of this becomes relevant to the topic.

So, if there were prints that somehow had extra shots (like the rumored double-grappling-hook-throw, or the rumored lack of the mouse droid shot), it would completely throw off the sound mix sync, and require that a completely separate conform would have to have been done in order to accomodate these extra shots.

Basically, it's a fuckton of extra work that would cost too much money to bother with.  It's just illogical for there to have been more than one version of the film in 1977 (discounting audio mixes, which all sync to the exact same version of the film).

Even the 1981 re-release with Episode IV added wouldn't require a separate conform - it just requires the first shot to be replaced, which projectionists could easily do.  It doesn't screw up the sync of the sound mix or anything, as the frame count is the same.

Basically, it just makes no sense for there to have been multiple versions of the film on its initial release.  Fox certainly would never have allowed it on such a risky film.

Memory is a funny thing - it cheats, and you shouldn't trust it with something you remember from 33 years ago.

Post
#452721
Topic
This Thread Is Currently About...Bingo and/or Wings!!!
Time

Darth Solo said:

Theres another George (it must be in the name) who seems to have lost their tallent lately aswell.

Thank satan for this TV show:

Not that im into the devil and shit....wait, i am, kinda.

This show is the doggs b*llocks! And gets a 8 out of 5 stars on the DS ratings

Yeah, The Walking Dead is pretty freakin' great.

But I disagree that George Romero has lost his talent.  I liked Survival of the Dead quite a bit.  It wasn't as good as the first trilogy (Night/Dawn/Day), but it was substantially better than Land or Diary.

Post
#452693
Topic
Article on prequel films. Note: Does not pertain to Godfather II, which isn't a prequel - it's a sequel with extended flashback sequences - or a partial prequel to some.
Time

Gaffer Tape said:

So it went to the Superman Returns school of rebooting then, huh?

Oh, don't get me started on that clusterfuck.  A sequel that ignores two of its predecessors, and cherry-picks what it wants to keep from the first two?  I don't know what the hell you call that.

It's like trying to sort out the continuity of the Highlander films.

Post
#452680
Topic
Article on prequel films. Note: Does not pertain to Godfather II, which isn't a prequel - it's a sequel with extended flashback sequences - or a partial prequel to some.
Time

Sluggo said:

ChainsawAsh said:

Oh, and The Incredible Hulk - meant to be "fuzzy."  It was designed to be a sequel to Hulk, while simultaneously ignoring the fact that Hulk existed.  So I guess the term "sequel-reboot" can apply here.

I need you to explain this.  I didn't get anywhere near the first Hulk movie, but thought the second one was the cat's pajamas.

The Eric Bana one ends with Banner hiding from the government in the Amazon, which is where the Ed Norton one begins.  Therefore, sequel.

All the actors are different, though, and the origin is completely different.  Therefore, reboot.

Post
#452654
Topic
Article on prequel films. Note: Does not pertain to Godfather II, which isn't a prequel - it's a sequel with extended flashback sequences - or a partial prequel to some.
Time

xhonzi said:

And couldn't that be used as an argument that in CR, M is heavily implied to be the same M, and Craig is specifically stated to be a new Bond?

That's tougher, because, in GoldenEye, Judi Dench-M is clearly a brand new M, and the first female M (based on dialogue exchanges between her and 007), whereas Bond is clearly well-established and has had his 00-license long enough for his interactions with the previous M to be well-known, at least to new-M.

Whereas, in Casino Royale, Bond is clearly starting from scratch and is "green," never had a 00-license before.  But M is a woman, and it seems as if she's had the job for quite a while, certainly since before Bond had his 00-license.

Therefore, different M - she just happens to be played by the same actress.

Which, quite frankly, irritated me - it made the fact that CR was a reboot that much more confusing.

 

Oh, and about the Star Wars prequels - whether or not they did a good job at following established continuity is a moot argument.  They were still designed to take place before Episodes IV-VI, not to start over and pretend they didn't exist (again, how well they did this is moot).  Therefore, prequel and not reboot in any way.

--edit--

Oh, and The Incredible Hulk - meant to be "fuzzy."  It was designed to be a sequel to Hulk, while simultaneously ignoring the fact that Hulk existed.  So I guess the term "sequel-reboot" can apply here.

Post
#452467
Topic
Article on prequel films. Note: Does not pertain to Godfather II, which isn't a prequel - it's a sequel with extended flashback sequences - or a partial prequel to some.
Time

How are the Star Wars prequels reboots in any way?  They don't de-canonize the films they take place before, as Batman Begins and Casino Royale do.

And I don't know where all this "sequel" reboot/"prequel" reboot business is coming from.  A reboot is a reboot, plain and simple.  None of the Bond films are reboots except for Casino Royale.  They just have very "fuzzy" continuity.

Think of it this way - is every episode of The Simpsons a reboot?  Of course not, it's (in its own way) a "sequel" to the episode that came before it.  But how can Bart have stayed ten years old for 21 years?!  "Fuzzy" continuity, just like Dr. No through Die Another Day.

And the new Star Trek is still a reboot, it's just that the rebooting is built into the story, unlike Casino and Batman Begins, which simply pretend anything before it doesn't exist.

Post
#452300
Topic
Article on prequel films. Note: Does not pertain to Godfather II, which isn't a prequel - it's a sequel with extended flashback sequences - or a partial prequel to some.
Time

I liked it a lot.  It's not as good as any of the others on my list, but it's better than any of them that aren't.

My only problem with it was that it seemed to be trying for the "Jason Bourne" thing a little too hard, what with all the shaky-cam action going on.  But I liked the movie itself quite a bit.  It was refreshing to me to see a Bond villain plotting simply for personal gain as opposed to "OMG I want to take over/destroy the WORLD!"  I also thought Bond's character arc throughout Casino and Quantum was very well done.

I honestly don't get the hate for Quantum.

Post
#452298
Topic
Article on prequel films. Note: Does not pertain to Godfather II, which isn't a prequel - it's a sequel with extended flashback sequences - or a partial prequel to some.
Time

hairy_hen said:

I dislike about half of the Bond films because they are so campy and over the top.  I have no idea why they kept taking the film series in that direction, but it's often irritating and stupid.  My favourites are the ones that take the premise and the character of Bond seriously, and these are usually the ones that adhere more closely to the spirit of Ian Fleming's creation.  Even among the better films, few of them really represent Bond himself being like the literary character, but the old movie persona is so ingrained in the popular consciousness that most people can't think of him any other way.

Since they effectively rebooted the series with Casino Royale, which is the first of the books, I really think they should have tried to do it properly this time and do them all, in order and more like the original stories while keeping the modern setting.  Doesn't seem like that's going to happen, though.

I agree with all of this.  I was quite saddened to learn that after Casino Royale, they wouldn't be doing any more book adaptations.

For shits and giggles (and I know this isn't the thread for it, but hey, we're in Off Topic already, right?), here are the Bond films I consider to be good Bond films - I really don't care about any of the others:

  • Dr. No
  • From Russia with Love
  • Goldfinger (to a lesser extent)
  • On Her Majesty's Secret Service
  • The Living Daylights
  • Licence to Kill
  • GoldenEye (to a MUCH lesser extent)
  • Casino Royale
  • Quantum of Solace

 

Although I suppose, to be fair, I haven't seen Live and Let Die in ages, so that one could be better than I remember.  I have no fondness for any of Roger Moore's other outings, though.

Post
#452281
Topic
Article on prequel films. Note: Does not pertain to Godfather II, which isn't a prequel - it's a sequel with extended flashback sequences - or a partial prequel to some.
Time

There's actually a fair amount of continuity in the early Bond films.  I'd say all the Connery films and On Her Majesty's Secret Service are definitely part of the same continuity (despite the confusion in OHMSS created by Blofeld apparently not recognizing Bond).  I'd also put Licence to Kill in this same continuity, as Bond's mission of vengeance against the killer of Felix's wife seems to be a vicarious mission of revenge for his wife.

Beyond that, yeah, they're pretty much standalone films.  Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace are the first Bond films since the sixties that actively try to be a part of the same continuity.

I also disagree with the sentiment that Quantum is the first "direct sequel" Bond film - From Russia with Love explicitly references the events of Dr. No a couple of times.