Sign In

Cthulhunicron

User Group
Members
Join date
4-Nov-2012
Last activity
26-Feb-2021
Posts
212

Post History

Post
#1413352
Topic
Unpopular Opinion Thread
Time

fmalover said:

Strip away all the supplementary material, and judging him exclusively on the movies, I must say Boba Fett is amongst the most overrated characters in Star Wars.

The only thing he has going for him is the undeniably cool looking suit of armour. Apart from that he does absolutely nothing noteworthy, and in TESB they only call him “bounty hunter”, just to show how little Lucas thought about him.

I sincerely don’t understand why he’s so popular with fans as he’s pretty much a nothing character.

I agree, completely. I never really gave Boba Fett much thought when I watched the movies when I was a kid. When I discovered Star Wars fan websites around 1997, I was kind of shocked to find out that he had this massive following.

Post
#1412006
Topic
Unpopular Opinion Thread
Time

Servii said:

Cthulhunicron said:

The Star Wars universe is pretty limited, and I don’t think there’s really anywhere for the story to go.

Hypothetically, the universe has limitless potential for new stories to tell and settings to explore, but since the people in charge of this IP are unwilling to step outside of the franchise’s comfort zone and make anything too unfamiliar, it will continue to stagnate, and the universe will shrink. This isn’t just Disney’s fault or modern Lucasfilm’s fault, by the way. This was a problem under George, as well. The franchise is too fettered to its past.

Possibly. It just seems to me that if you attempt something drastically different with Star Wars…it kinda ceases to feel like Star Wars and just becomes generic sci-fi. If it just becomes a series about the Republic fighting against various different military threats from other planets, then it basically becomes Star Trek or Mass Effect.

I feel like what makes this franchise feel like Star Wars is the spiritual aspect, the emotional struggle of resisting the dark side of the force, and the family drama at the core of the story. You can attempt to keep this going indefinitely, I guess, but what do you do? Introduce another Jedi protagonist, descended from a Sith Lord?

Now obviously we have the Mandalorian, which I agree does feel like Star Wars and it also feels fresh and original, but it also feels like a small background story. I think there is potential for some spin-offs like this, but I don’t really see where Star Wars can go in terms of the larger picture. Theoretically anything can happen in this galaxy, but is it going to be interesting? If episode 10 is about a Trandoshan civil war, is anyone going to care? Will that feel worthy of being episode 10, or will it feel like something they should have just done in a novel?

Post
#1394611
Topic
<em>The Mandalorian</em> Discussion Thread - * <em><strong>SPOILERS</strong></em> *
Time

rebothejedi said:

Cthulhunicron said:

I’m really hoping we get more answers about what Gideon was trying to do with Grogu’s blood.

Palpatine?

That would be my guess, but this just feels kind of like an underwhelming ending if this is supposed to be the end of the Grogu story arc. We still don’t even know how he escaped the Jedi purge, or why he has gaps in his memory.

Post
#1394595
Topic
<em>The Mandalorian</em> Discussion Thread - * <em><strong>SPOILERS</strong></em> *
Time

I really doubt Luke is coming back. Then again, I doubted Luke would show up at all.

I’m really hoping we get more answers about what Gideon was trying to do with Grogu’s blood. Execution aside, I don’t really know how to feel about Grogu going off with Luke. Like is that it? No more Grogu? Is that story arc completely wrapped, or is he coming back? If that’s really the end, that really feels…underwhelming.

Post
#1394393
Topic
<em>The Mandalorian</em> Discussion Thread - * <em><strong>SPOILERS</strong></em> *
Time

13las said:

I hope I won’t be raining on anyone’s parade but that was… bad, right? I’ve really enjoyed this season but that really left a poor taste in my mouth. I thought the pacing was bizarre and that whole final sequence… Yikes.

I’m not against what they did in principle but good god. Would it kill them to recast a role or let an actor play his own age when the alternative is a straight up video game character?

I haven’t seen anyone else’s take on the episode yet so I really hope I’m not the only grump. I wanted to love it but damn.

This was easily the worst episode of the whole series. CGI Luke looked bad. Grogu’s fate is to be killed by kylo? Wonderful. Bo Katan can’t take the darksaber from Din, but she could take it from Sabine?

I was skeptical about resurrecting Boba Fett for this season, but they kinda pulled it off. However, I think he’s a character that works in small doses. I have no interest in a boba fett series.

Post
#1380853
Topic
What was changed for 1995 THX version?
Time

I’ve read that the films were digitally remastered for better sound and picture quality, but I’ve also read this was a separate process from the digital scanning/alteration of the o-negatives. So when they digitally remastered for the 1995 release, did they just scan the most recent internegative of each film? I know internegatives are created in order to print theatrical prints; I don’t really know what the process was when movies were released on vhs.

Post
#1370562
Topic
Info: Mike Verta’s 4K Restoration - May 2020 Livestream
Time

RU.08 said:

yotsuya said:

They way he described it was that he was removing grain that was the result of additional generations. So yes, the grain is reduced/removed, but if he did it right, it would be the o-neg level of grain which was made worse with each generation.

That’s what he said but it’s not what he did.

However, as someone who watches quite a lot of 35mm projected I can tell you the grain you see in a scan, even a top-quality scan with no visible scanner noise, is significantly more than is apparent on projection. So it is quite reasonable to do some grain reduction to match projection.

Cthulhunicron said:

So, the O-negative had badly faded by 1994, so it seems like that means that what Lucasfilm is calling the O-negative is actually partially (or mostly) comprised of new film printed in the 90s. We know parts of the o-negative were unusable, and other parts were destroyed in the cleaning process. Damaged sections were re-created from the separation masters, interpositives, and internegatives. Any shots containing CGI (including digital recomposites) were rendered in 2K and then printed to film in 1997.

So when they did the 4K scan, most of what they were scanning would logically have to be new film printed in the 90s, correct? Also, is it possible that the 1997 version contains more frames from the actual o-negative than the 4K scan? It seems like if there were any o-negative frames in 1994 that had survived with minimal fading, then the fading would have been even worse by the time they started working on the 4K version.

There’s plenty of material because they kept everything. The best material is the camera negative, then there’s the dupe positives, the dupe negatives, the separation masters, and so on.

I know, but they said the o-negative has faded because it some of the film stock was notorious for quick fading, and some of it was unusable. Other sections of the negative were destroyed when they cleaned it. In 1997, they said they restored the negative by making duplications of sections from internegatives, interpositives, and the separation masters. So it seems to me that around 1997, what Lucasfilm is calling the “restored negative” (now conformed to the 97 SE), it would have to partially (or mostly) consist of new pieces of film printed in the 90s. All cgi shots were printed onto film, all digital composites were printed onto film, and the restored sections were new film created from IN, IP, or SM sources.

If there were any sections of the restored negative that were actually from the original negative, it seems like they would have faded even worse by 2013 when they did the 4K scan. Unless they were able to avoid additional fading through better storage methods. I suppose worst case scenario, if the sections of the negative that were printed prior to the 90s were unusable , they could have been scanned from the separation masters, since those don’t fade. I’ve heard even the IPs and INs had fading.

Post
#1370254
Topic
Info: Mike Verta’s 4K Restoration - May 2020 Livestream
Time

So, the O-negative had badly faded by 1994, so it seems like that means that what Lucasfilm is calling the O-negative is actually partially (or mostly) comprised of new film printed in the 90s. We know parts of the o-negative were unusable, and other parts were destroyed in the cleaning process. Damaged sections were re-created from the separation masters, interpositives, and internegatives. Any shots containing CGI (including digital recomposites) were rendered in 2K and then printed to film in 1997.

So when they did the 4K scan, most of what they were scanning would logically have to be new film printed in the 90s, correct? Also, is it possible that the 1997 version contains more frames from the actual o-negative than the 4K scan? It seems like if there were any o-negative frames in 1994 that had survived with minimal fading, then the fading would have been even worse by the time they started working on the 4K version.

Post
#1369185
Topic
4K restoration on Star Wars
Time

Mocata said:

If I remember correctly all film stock will degrade with time fading or turning pink, and it’s worse with movies from a certain era onwards, which is why movies are stored underground away from moisture or light. So they can be preserved for long time but not forever.

True, but even though the negatives for the OT were stored properly , they still were in bad shape circa 1994, due to the fact that they were printed on quick fade film stock.

Secrethistoryofstarwars.com says these types of film negatives need to be corrected every 5 years to compensate for fading. I guess I don’t quite understand how you compensate for the fading. I don’t know enough about film preservation to fully understand how this works, it seems like people are saying sections of the negative are original, they’ve just been color corrected and cleaned up with chemicals. But the article also says some sections were so badly faded, they were unusable. When they were color corrected, does that somehow change the damaged film back to looking normal, and then it’s stable for another 5 years, or do you have to create a new piece of film?

Edit: I re-read the secret history article and got my answer. Some sections of the negative were unusable so they were replaced with copies of sections of the interpositives. From what I can tell, the faded sections were replaced with new interpositives color timed using the separation masters. So it sounds like large portions of the original negative are in fact lost and replaced with new interpositives, even the sections that have no cgi alterations.

Post
#1369159
Topic
4K restoration on Star Wars
Time

Sorry, another question. So, the secret history of Star Wars link says the negative was printed onto film that was fading, and it had endured wear and tear from all the copies made throughout the 80s. Hence, the whole motivation to clean up and restore the film. So they chemically cleaned it, then the alterations were rendered in the computer and printed to film and then edited back into the negative. What prevents the negative from fading further over time? Did they have to chemically treat the negative with some kind of coating or something to prevent further damage over time?

Post
#1368990
Topic
4K restoration on Star Wars
Time

I was listened to an episode of the Film Formally podcast where they had Drew Stewart on to talk about all the various changes made to Star Wars.

Drew mentioned that when the 97 SE version was created, Lucasfilm did a 1080p scan of the original negative. The scan was then digitally cleaned up, revised with new cgi effects and deleted scenes, and then printed back onto film for a new “original negative.”

For the 4K release, did they just take the 97 SE and upscale it to 4K, as well as upscaling all the other scenes that have been altered since (Hayden in ROTJ, new versions of Jabba, Ian McDiarmid in empire)? Wouldn’t that mean it’s not a true 4K restoration since the only film print that exists in lucasfilm’s archives is the 97 SE, which is locked at 1080p?

Sorry in advance if this has already been addressed.