ChainsawAsh

MalàStrana said:

Retcon in the sense they just are random props in the background of ANH, nothing of value attached to them, and suddenly they get some kind of narrative meaning out of the blue, as if they meant something.

You could say that about so many things in movie sequels. You’re just looking for stuff to gripe about.

Retcon? They’re already in ANH, their existence in the ST and Solo is a reference, not a retcon. Unless you’re talking about the markings on the faces of the dice, in which case, yeah, the ones in ANH just had the usual dots like normal dice do and not the “alien” symbols of later movies.

I suppose it was down to the way it was phrased then, because that’s not how I read it at all.

At any rate, sorry for misinterpreting your post(s). I’ll stop cluttering up Chewielewis’ thread now.

IIRC Lucas specifically forbade EU authors from going into any detail about the prequel era and the Clone Wars.

I probably got that impression from this “why bother at all?” snippet at the end of your post about the subs:

ZigZig said:

…so what is the point to add such a subtitle?

ZigZig said:

OK, sure.
I’m just saying that actual 35mm are currently available (otherwise how could I use them)…

Did you offer them to Chewielewis for use in this project? Or did he ask you if he could use them?

I don’t see why you’d just criticize his handling of the subtitles like that when you apparently have the solution in hand.

I stand corrected. And it’ll be nice (IMO) to have a “near enough” to theatrical subtitle until we have actual 35mm scans of all the subs when Poita is able to get his print scanned, even if they aren’t 100% exact. Much like the subs in early versions of Despecialized before Harmy had good 35mm scans to work from.

schorman13 said:

I don’t know if I’d agree with your conclusions about the drop shadow on the Z bootleg. It never looked like anything but vertical to me. The resolution is so low that any deviation could easily just be due to aliasing.

I agree with this from my attempt at a similar project a while back.

Excited to see what you’ve cooked up though, especially in regards to the color timing!

I actually remembered Eccleston’s season as being a mixed bag until I rewatched it before the 50th.

It’s actually very consistent, more so than perhaps any other season of the show. The farting aliens episodes are actually really good with the sole exception of the…well…farting aliens.

DuracellEnergizer said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

OriginalTrilogy’s Least Favorite Cop

Does ChainsawAsh have a photo to use for an avatar?

You mean like this?

yotsuya said:

Someone has to be in charge of genre definitions.

I mean…do they, though? Isn’t genre kind of a nebulous thing?

If this is true, who made up all the eight billion subgenres of heavy metal and where can I find them so I can end them send them a strongly worded letter?

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.

Rest in peace, Mr. Kurtz. 😦

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Yeah, agreed. Which makes me wonder why they didn’t stick with that precedent after The Christmas Invasion…

Yeah, pretty much that. Especially all the forced sexism jokes.

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.

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.

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.

They came out at the same time so likely used the same master.

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…