Chewtobacca

TV's Frink said:

Dirty little secret - I often watch SD content on my HD CRT stretched so I don't have to worry about burn-in.  But I never do that on my LCD.

You filthy Frink!  :-)  I promise I won't tell your LCD what you get up to with your CRT.  It'll never know! ;-)

Ric Olie said:

Jar Jar good buddy!  Miso happy to be seein youso.

Brilliant!  The last three posts made me laugh, and this thread really needed some levity. 

TV's Frink said:

Ok.  But the black bar hate has got to stop.  What did those black bars ever do to anyone?

*sobs*

Well, I wasn't speaking for myself, my friend.  I said I knew other people who would appreciate a zoomed version, and I do.

I don't mind black bars myself, but I can see why many people don't like buying a big widescreen TV and having a significant portion of the screen effectively unused.  Many grew up with Star Wars as a pan and scan presentation on a 4:3 television, so having it as pan and scan on a 16:9 television is still an appreciable advance for them, is still widescreen and gives a nice big picture. 

I have argued the case for the black bars myself, and for 16:9 itself as being the best compromise between the many aspect ratios in existence, but ultimately such argument is fruitless.  Many people simply hate the black bars, and that's all there is to it.  I don't always agree, but I understand it.

Thank you for the information, TMBTM.  :-)  If someone can capture them and edit them, they might be worth having, though not if the quality is as poor as you say.

I'm sorry to hear you're angry, TMBTM.  :-(  I actually wouldn't mind having a copy of the zoomed version of Star Wars, as I know many people who hate the black bars and would appreciate a zoomed version. 

What's the quality like apart from the zoom?  Were there burnt in French subtitles or was it dubbed? 

If anyone captures these and uploads a copy, let me know. 

I agree with Bingowings on this one - for the first time ever.  :-)  The humor here is entirely a matter of taste.  Whether those who are making misogynistic (sexist, racist whatever) jokes really are any of those things, or simply find them amusing, is something no one can else can ultimately tell, and it's irrelevant anyway.  

People are always going to find other people's views and humor offensive, but if people wish (as I do) to live in a world with free speech, we're going to have to learn to deal with being offended every now and then.  It won't kill us.  If we don't like it, we can switch off.

TV's Frink said:

Jeez, Chewtobacca, you are so unfriendly.  You don't do anything around here except help people track down Ady's AVCHDs.  You should be more friendly by insisting your opinion is fact, taking everything personally, lashing out whenever you are questioned, and so on.

Thanks for the advice, TV's Frink. :-) I'll try not to take it too literally.

Finally, I was surprised to find that I actually enjoyed his vocal treatment as well.  Having heard just a bit of it previously, I didn't know if I could take it for 70 minutes.  But for whatever reason, his voice grew on me the more I watched the review.

I experienced the same thing.  The voice makes the review funnier and gives it an almost train-of-thought feel, which I find quite enjoyable.  I'll try to take in more of his reviews, when I have the chance. 

zombie84 said:

Right, but when I say its "not news" I mean that its a generally trivial matter that wouldn't be something he would be aware of.

I used the word news originally and you quoted it and said it was not news.  If you were not using the word news in the same sense, that's a bizarre way to write, as it comes across as a correction.

zombie84 said:

I just wouldn't expect the director to be so on top of things like this.

Fair enough!  I just expect that Ridley Scott would.

zombie84 said:

Its not news though.

You're confusing two semantic values of the word news.  There is news as in media news (broadcast news) and news as in information of interest: "news of this..."; "when news of this reached his ears..."  etc.

zombie84 said:

I know its a big deal to home video enthusiasts on message boards. But thats as far as it goes. Its a matter for the Warner home video department, who SHOULD be keeping wind of this stuff, not Ridley Scott.

I'm not saying he is responsible for the fiasco.  I'm simply saying that if I were in his position, I would have expressed an opinion on the release. This is especially true as he has a history of an taking interest in home releases of his films and a reputation for quality, being known to retain Charles de Lauzirika's services to achieve just this.

Baronlando said:

How can he possibly know about it if he's in the middle of directing a huge movie all year long? He's not a 12 year old girl checking the web on his iphone 40 times a day.

I doubt he needs to check forty times a day to know, and I find it hard to believe - busy or not - that news of this has passed him by.

I had reliability problems with both Xbox 360 units I had, but none with the PS3.  I would recommend you buy a PS3. You might not be interested in blu-ray now - I respect that - but I think having it would give you options in the future that the the 360 wouldn't give you.  When blu-ray becomes the norm, which is admittedly a while off, it cannot hurt to have another player for your children to play movies on, especially if you ever want them out of your hair in another part of the house, while you're playing a blu-ray of your own.  I think the PS3 is more "future proof".

This is pure personal opinion, and I'm not interested in debating the merits of either system.  This is just another opinion for the original poster to weigh in the balance. 

Jay said:

Keep in mind that most directors are usually more interested in current projects than revisiting past works. Scott probably hasn't even seen the Gladiator Blu-ray.

As fans, our priorities are quite different from theirs.

I said: "if I were a director". ;-)   If Scott hasn't seen the blu-ray given the storm of controvesy surrounding its quality issues, then he shows a surprising lack of interest in it, given his reputation for attention to detail and enthusiasm for quality DVD home releases, which I hope would extend to blu-rays.  He provides interviews for many of his releases, records director's commentaries, and has revisited a number of his works.  I repeat that find it odd (and somewhat disappointing) that he has not been more vocal on the issue.

Moth3r said:
Err... can't see many people complaining about that one.

I agree.  Black as soot sounds much more poetic.

As for The Hobbit, I actually prefer the new version, but thinking about it after reading through this thread, I have decided I would love a collector's edition of the original. 

I do think Tolkien's case is somewhat exceptional when it comes to authors rewriting their works after publication though.  Tolkien continually re-wrote his writings on Middle Earth and wasn't finished at the time of his death.  While other authors might make small changes to their works, continually re-inventing them is something that I have not come across with any other writer.

Vaderisnothayden said:

Oh yes it was.  Writing a word in capitals has nothing to do with how it is phrased.  Phrasing has to do with the words used, not the orthography.

Now that's getting pedantically literal. You know what I meant.

No; I didn't know what you meant.  You said it wasn't phrased as a factual statement, and by the laws of English grammar it was.  I can't think of a more clear-cut case of having been proven wrong. 

Vaderisnothayden said:

So don't go lecturing me.

No; I won't.  You defend yourself over-aggressively, so I've no wish to talk to you further.  You're on my ignore list from now on.  No doubt you'll do the same, so that's an end to the matter.

Vaderisnothayden said:

 It wasn't phrased as a neutral factual statement.

Oh yes it was.  Writing a word in capitals has nothing to do with how it is phrased.  Phrasing has to do with the words used, not the orthography.

Vaderisnothayden said:

 The stress on the "is" indicated that I was arguing a contentious point, some that needed to be defended and fought for, rather than merely providing information.

Using capitals usually means the opposite.  Example: You ARE wrong.  I'm certainly not trying to signal that this statement is contentious, quite the opposite:  it comes across as, "I know better and the capitals emphasise the fact."

Neither I, nor TV's Frink, nor anyone else read your post as anything other than a factual statement meant to correct the person you quoted.  If you wish to provide clues, you might you might wish to be clearer in future, for those of us who don't share your obscure writing style.

Bingowings said:

Seeing as this is a discussion board it would be beneficial if we assumed that all posts were from "a certain point of view" unless stated otherwise.

It's a real pain whenever someone chirps in and vents a built up frustration about the perceived haughtiness of a postee based on their non-disclosure of their humble or honest opinion or personal view (IMHO) ;-)

On a discussion board, people will always post both factual statements and opinions, and it does not seem at all beneficial me to treat what sound like factual statements as opinions.  I don't see that any "perceived haughtiness" was at work here: what sounded for all the world like a factual statement quite naturally provoked a correction because it was phrased in a categorical way. 

Vaderisnothayden said:

That would have been assuming I was too dumb to know the official definition of EU.  I try to avoid making such assumptions about people when there's another obvious explanation. Like if you didn't assume I was dumb you'd figure I knew the official version and was discarding it.

I made no assumption about whether or not you were "dumb".  I simply described how your post came across. 

Not knowing something does not make one "dumb" - simply unaware.  It was possible, in my mind, that you had made an honest error.

Vaderisnothayden said: I took his post to be a sneer at me, implying I didn't know what I was talking about while deliberately ignoring the obvious fact that I was clearly rejecting the official definition of the eu. Hence the herd-following comment.

That was neither clear nor obvious to me as an impartial observer.  Your post stating, "TPM IS eu," came across as a simple factual correction to the poster before you.  You did not preface the statement with a phrase, such as "from my point of view" or "it could be argued", that might have made it clear that you were rejecting the accepted definition of EU. 

I had exactly the same thought as TV's Frink when I saw your post.  If he had not posted a link to a definition, I would have been sorely tempted to do so. 

Asteroid-Man said:

 Remember that this isn't an obligation, this is something I'm doing in my spare time and 1 frame isn't worth another 14hrs of rendering.

I'm going to have to say I'm with DJ and others on this.   Fourteen hours is an inconsequential amount of time compared to the time people will, it is to be hoped, spend downloading and enjoying this.   It is ultimately your decision, of course, and no one should challenge that, but it seems a shame to have come this far and not do everything you can to perfect this.  I think you would feel better in the long run if you managed to sort this out before release.

I'm sorry for your loss, Ady.  Spend time taking care of your family.  We'll all be here when you get back.

You and your family have all my hopes, Ady! 

Moth3r said:

The ban on marriage is a prequel idea; I don't really pay much attention to that.

What he said.  Lucas didn't think the whole matter through very carefully - simple as that. 

Timstuff said:

Could someone PM me a link to the color-corrected Phantom Menace? Preferably for Rapidshare.com since that's what I currently have a 30 day pass for? Thank you!

I'll help you out, man.  No problem.  PM sent. 

ABC said:

 Oh. Sorry. In French, "change" means a change or a re-evaluation, when an "alteration" means a degradation.

When you're an author who allows himself to some changes in your own work, they can be a degradation or an improvement. The second one can't be called an alteration in French.

That's fascinating!  Thank you for letting me know.  I didn't know the words carried those meanings in French.  I think it shows an interesting difference in perspective.  :-)

ABC said:

What is the difference between a "change" and an "alteration" ?

There is none in common parlance.  To change is to alter.  You can describe different kinds of change if you want to do so, but to use one of a pair of synonyms to refer to one kind of change, and the other to refer to another kind of change, would be a purely arbitrary distinction.

 And, while there is some validity to the notion that by altering the Hobbit he muddles the plot point in LOTR, realize that he does include a preface in the Hobbit stating that the story of the riddles used to be told differently, but the truth was discovered and so now it has been updated.  It's rather clever how he explains the discrepancy in LOTR, and the change in the Hobbit preface.

Where does it say that in the preface?  I have two copies of the book and in the preface of neither does this statement about the riddle-game appear.  I have never seen this.  Perhaps we have different versions?