Sign In

Dek Rollins

User Group
Members
Join date
6-Apr-2015
Last activity
2-Apr-2020
Posts
3,111

Post History

Post
#1332617
Topic
Return Of The Jedi - a General Random Thoughts thread
Time

I’m not sure I like the idea of a bittersweet ending to the trilogy, but ROTJ would’ve turned out much better had Lucas and Kurtz worked out there differences with a little more compromise. Gary Kurtz was probably one of the most important people in the creation of Star Wars and Empire. He believed in the material. Lucas probably should’ve gotten Irvin Kershner back to direct too.

Post
#1332391
Topic
Return Of The Jedi - a General Random Thoughts thread
Time

darklordoftech said:

Tantive3+1 said:

darklordoftech said:

The Emperor’s guards are called “Royal Guards” and Luke calls the Emperor “your highness”, but we already knew in 1983 that he’s a politician who got the legislative body to vote absolute power to him, not someone who inherited a throne.

Another thing the PT got wrong.

As I said, it was already known in 1983 that Palpatine was elected to be the Republic’s head of state.

When was this stated in the films?

Post
#1331406
Topic
Star Wars (1977) - a General Random Thoughts thread
Time

Not only its genre, but Star Wars was a lot more juvenile and simplistic than a lot of popular cinema in the '70s. The lack of cynicism resonated with audiences, but no-fun-allowed critics didn’t like it because it wasn’t that deep. I haven’t seen Annie Hall yet, nor have I gotten around to seeing any of Woody Allen’s films, but I have a feeling his work had more thematic depth, which the academy would obviously gravitate towards.

Post
#1331339
Topic
Your DVD Collection
Time

CourtlyHades296 said:

A month ago today, I stop by a local thrift store and find an MGM DVD of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Less than a month later, I upgrade 2001 to Blu-Ray via an eBay lot that also included the soundtrack on CD. And yet I’m still keeping the DVD because of it’s original 70mm six-track audio.

Just in case you didn’t know, the newer Blu-ray actually includes the original audio mix, not to mention it has a much better transfer than the older Blu-ray.

Post
#1331307
Topic
Aspect Ratios of Original Trilogies
Time

Darth Robin said:

The OT seems to have gotten a slightly wider aspect ratio with the D+ version.

Looking at these screenshots it seems to be a case of cropping. The D+ version has less picture at the top and bottom: http://www.framecompare.com/image-compare/screenshotcomparison/DYLPLNNX

On this one there seems to be more picture on the sides though:
http://www.framecompare.com/image-compare/screenshotcomparison/J1B2FNNU

Intressting.

I’m sure they framed each shot independently. Those 19SE frames come out at ~2.39, so it’s correct at the very least.

Post
#1331143
Topic
Wallace & Gromit in "The Wrong Trousers" - Original Audio Preservation
Time

NewClear said:

If you want to slow it to 24fps, you can slow the audio down by encoding it like this:

ffmpeg -loglevel error -stats -n -i “The Wrong Trousers HD v2.mkv” -vn -sn -af asetrate=46080,aresample=48000 -c:a aac -b:a 192k -vbr 5 “The Wrong Trousers HD v2.mka”

And just remux it with the video in mkvtoolnix, de-selecting the original audio, and setting the video frame rate to 24fps.

I’m not well versed in ffmpeg, does this operation keep the correct audio pitch? I assume you’re posting this for the benefit of those who want to keep their file BD-compliant.

Post
#1331091
Topic
Wallace & Gromit in "The Wrong Trousers" - Original Audio Preservation
Time

Would be people be interested in a speed/pitch corrected edition of A Grand Day Out? Also, if I were to include speed corrections of both other shorts as bonuses with this preservation, would people prefer I use the cropped Blu-ray of A Close Shave to keep it HD, or just use a DVD video source to keep the proper aspect ratio?

Post
#1331043
Topic
Wallace & Gromit in "The Wrong Trousers" - Original Audio Preservation
Time

With the DVD audio source in hand thanks to d00mb0yz96, I figured it was a good excuse to make a new, more complete version of this preservation. So this time around I synced it to the Blu-ray copy properly, at 25fps of course.

My old HD preservation had the BBC logo stuck in at the beginning, and the end credits had to be patched in from the altered DVD audio track. Now the entire short uses the original track via the 1999 DVD, with the only thing added from the altered track being the Aardman logo audio at the beginning, as the 1999 DVD doesn’t include any logos before the short. The opening BBC logo was left out to retain sync with the Blu-ray, since the 1999 DVD only has it at the end anyway. I found it quite a relief that there are no frame differences between the Blu-ray and the 1999 DVD, so no edits had to be made to the DVD audio at all.

I’ve also included the Blu-ray commentary track, adjusted to match the 25fps frame rate. I don’t know what the correct pitch is for the voice overs, but the audio from the short in this track matches the standard Blu-ray track, so I pitch corrected it on that basis. I also added the audio from the BBC logo at the end of the short for consistency.

This is a 4.14GB MKV. Both audio tracks are available separately as well, for those who want to correct the frame rate of their own Blu-ray copy and simply mux the audio in.

As always, drop me a PM for links.

Post
#1330996
Topic
Ranking the Star Wars films
Time

NeverarGreat said:

I’ve decided that ranking these movies as some abstract exercise in filmic quality is folly. So I’m going to numerically rank them in terms of how I felt when they actually released:

First, the Star Wars:

  1. Star Wars - A stone cold timeless classic which has never been topped
  2. The Empire Strikes Back - The best Star Wars sequel and a perfect coming-of-age tale
  3. Return of the Jedi - A worthy sendoff of the trilogy with some of the best optical effects ever made

Next, the Attempt at Recapturing Star Wars:

  1. The Phantom Menace - A fascinating if flawed space adventure with a good mix of practical and digital effects
  2. Attack of the Clones - The inflection point of the saga, whiffing on almost everything except the score
  3. Revenge of the Sith - Taking all the poor choices of Clones and doubling down, officially killing the prequels

Finally, the Never Coming Close to Star Wars:

  1. The Force Awakens - The opening crawl throws Star Wars in the garbage, and it manages to get worse from there
  2. The Last Jedi - A sophomoric postmodernist deconstruction of the garbage fire that is this IP
  3. The Rise of Skywalker - An attempt so pathetic that it truly becomes so-bad-it’s-good

So yes, the Episode numbers exactly correspond with the quality of the saga, simply because each misstep of the previous entries becomes part of the story and lessens it. The story of Star Wars is legitimately worse because of the prequels, and the 1-6 ‘Saga’ is trivialized and trashed by the ST. Attack of the Clones is better than The Last Jedi simply because TLJ never had a chance to be part of a meaningful story.

This is a perfect post.

Post
#1330792
Topic
How do you feel about Star Wars being re-titled A New Hope in 1981?
Time

ray_afraid said:

Dek Rollins said:

It’s still the same film.

Fair enough. In this instance, even the title change is enough for me to distinguish one as a stand alone & the other as part of a series.

I don’t think that logic applies to every situation. I watch the original version as part of a trilogy. Not the 1981 version. Yes, watching it as a standalone is simpler if you watch the original, but neither version functions only within such an exclusive setting. It’s just a movie, and it can be viewed under whatever lens the viewer chooses. The '81 version doesn’t have a “to be continued” added at the end, a la Back to the Future. 😉

I think it’s worth noting that people usually don’t say this sort of thing about other films that have “director’s cuts” that only change a couple of scenes. The DC of Star Trek II isn’t a different movie, it’s just a better version of the same movie. In the case of Star Wars, we’re talking about a release that had literally zero editing or content changes throughout the film, other than the opening shot being recomposited with a subtitle added. Again, Star Trek II didn’t have the “II” in the opening title on some prints, but nobody would argue this changes the film fundamentally.

I guess it has more to do with nerdy semantics than anything. : )

Of course. Semantics can always be discussed.

Post
#1330736
Topic
How do you feel about Star Wars being re-titled A New Hope in 1981?
Time

The only effects change made to the 1981 release is a recomposite of the flyover after the crawl, which obviously had to be done since they used a different starfield for the opening. Every other supposed effects change was made during the original release. Some of the '81 release was even done by splicing the new opening onto old prints. It’s still the same film.

Post
#1330723
Topic
How do you feel about Star Wars being re-titled A New Hope in 1981?
Time

I would say every “special edition” version is a different film, but the 1981 release is not a different film just because a subtitle was added to the opening ruining the musical cue. It’s just a worse version of the same film.

I’m kind of indifferent to the ANH title being added, but the poor editing and the awful reformatting of the crawl itself means I can’t say it doesn’t hurt the film. I think it works better without ANH anyway. Since it is the first film, it seems reasonable for episodes to be ‘missing’ between SW and TESB.

In conversation I always call it Star Wars, and if someone wants me to clarify, I say “the first one” or “the original.”