Fang Zei

User Group: Members
Join date: 14-Oct-2006
Last activity: 16-Oct-2025
Posts: 2,792

Post History

Post: #290627
Topic: So, um... no new DVD's announced this year?
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/290627/action/topic#290627
Time: 17-Jun-2007 5:01 PM

At this point I can't really blame you for feeling that way, DGC. When LFL pretty blatantly states that they're not going to even remaster the originals because they're in bad condition even though they did restore the negatives for the SE, how do you not take that as one huge fuck you? The Star Wars fan I am now wonders why the Star Wars fan I used to be didn't boycott everything from Lucas in the past 10 years. If I'd known what was coming, I probably would have.

Post: #290309
Topic: So, um... no new DVD's announced this year?
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/290309/action/topic#290309
Time: 14-Jun-2007 8:30 AM

Would someone please tell me why people just shy away whenever the issue of another petition is brought up?

Post: #290276
Topic: Your first words of reaction after watching one of the PT movies for the first time.
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/290276/action/topic#290276
Time: 13-Jun-2007 11:27 PM

I saw TPM by myself the afternoon of opening day, not a very crowded theater as I remember (although the line waiting to get in for the next showing aftwerwards was pretty long). The duel was so entertaining at the end that it made me forget how cringeworthy some of the previous scenes were. So, my first words of reaction were "best movie ever." I mean, c'mon, it was the first time I'd seen an actual new Star Wars movie on the big screen, although I guess the SE's do kinda fall into that category too, not being the originals and all.

For AOTC I had words of reaction during the damn thing. So did my friends I was seeing it with. The situation was a little different since I'd spoiled myself silly this time. By the time it ended I only had the feeling of having to wait another 3 years.

At the end of ROTS my friend asked me what I thought. My hesitant reply was "It was good."

Post: #290232
Topic: Time to get assertive
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/290232/action/topic#290232
Time: 13-Jun-2007 5:41 PM

Zombie, the old dvd of blade runner was in fact anamorphic. It just looks like total shit compared to the new remaster for a variety of reasons.

Post: #290175
Topic: Time to get assertive
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/290175/action/topic#290175
Time: 13-Jun-2007 7:10 AM

I ask, in all seriousness, if a new petition is actually going to be written or if we'll have to wait until the SE and not the OOT is released on blu-ray disc for an excuse to do so.

Post: #290172
Topic: Share your Star Wars theater experience
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/290172/action/topic#290172
Time: 13-Jun-2007 6:25 AM

I'm happy to say that the last time I saw ROTS on the big screen, especially if it really is the last Star Wars film ever, was at the Uptown in D.C., the only theater in the area showing Star Wars on May 25, 1977.

Post: #289528
Topic: Time to get assertive
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/289528/action/topic#289528
Time: 7-Jun-2007 8:13 PM

Well, there's my non-anamorphic dvd of Oklahoma! mastered by THX from the 30 frame-per-second Todd-AO version. That looks pretty bad.

As an aside, I spotted Fox's latest reissue of The Abyss dvd in the store the other day. They spruced it up with a lenticular cover, but did they remaster it this time? On the back cover it says widescreen and in that same box but with smaller lettering "anamorphic 2.35:1." According to reports it's still the same old 4:3 letterbox transfer for the umpteenth time. The rumor is that they're not bothering to remaster it for dvd because they're waiting to put it out on blu-ray.

Post: #289301
Topic: Time to get assertive
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/289301/action/topic#289301
Time: 6-Jun-2007 8:46 AM

Technically none of the six films are on dvd in their original theatrical forms, not counting the GOUT of course which is a laserdisc dump. If GL's going to continue being bias towards the prequels, he should do at minimum a 12-disc set, two discs per movie, one the original release and the other the latest release. That way he could at least try to improve the prequels many consider inferior while also being fair and balanced by including their original versions, something I'll admit would be nice since those star wars flicks I actually did get to see in their original theatrical runs. Since I didn't get to see the OT in its original run, a remastered OOT would also be nice. GL can tinker with the 1997 versions even more for those people who will apparently always be happy with whatever he puts out.

Post: #289167
Topic: Intriguing new info on Original Trilogy and Prequel Trilogy deleted scenes gleaned from CELEBRATION IV.
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/289167/action/topic#289167
Time: 5-Jun-2007 5:15 AM

Originally posted by: pittrek
Maybe it's time for a new petition ?

Ya think?!

It's been time for a new petition for quite a while now.

Post: #288324
Topic: The new look official Star Wars site is up
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/288324/action/topic#288324
Time: 28-May-2007 7:14 PM

Originally posted by: lordjedi
Is it me or do people just hate everything that comes out of LFL related to Star Wars now, just because? It's almost like you're only cool around here if you hate any new Star Wars stuff that's not related to the OOT. I hate the PT as much as the next OT.com reader, but I think it's getting a little ridiculous.

While we're on the topic of the flash pages, it really really got me furious to see that they decided of all the thousands of pages on their site to post links to the "what has changed" articles from when the GOUT was released, especially since it's not even supposed to be on sale anymore at all and it was the 30th anniversary of just one movie not the other two and some of us have been awaiting a remaster and were hoping that would be the day it was announced. It's unbelievable but at least it's gone now that they have some CIV stuff to post.

Post: #287540
Topic: Will the original 'Star Wars' ever be properly presented on DVD?
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/287540/action/topic#287540
Time: 22-May-2007 3:19 PM

Were it not for the fact that most people don't know what anamorphic video is, there would definitely be a demand.

Post: #286998
Topic: George Lucas calls Spiderman 3 'silly'
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/286998/action/topic#286998
Time: 17-May-2007 1:53 PM

They willingly use the Jedi Rocks music on their podcasts now. Give that some thought.

Post: #286896
Topic: Hello I'm new and have a question. (re StarWars.com and its message boards)
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/286896/action/topic#286896
Time: 16-May-2007 10:32 PM

Now I know to stay the hell away from the OS's MB. I was curious.

In all honesty, up until the GOUT debacle I thought it was a cool site. That "what has changed?" thing, where they blatantly gave you the impression that the OOT would be 16:9 enhanced when the non-anamorphic news had already broke, that just infuriated me. LFL, it's so simple and yet apparently so complicated.

Post: #286866
Topic: A question about NTSC telecine
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/286866/action/topic#286866
Time: 16-May-2007 7:07 PM

Well I just looked up the U.K. releases of the Casino Royale blu-ray disc and the Harry Potter 4 hd-dvd and they both match their imdb running times exactly. I guess this high definition stuff really is the future. Moth3r, in regards to that flicker I was talking about, what I meant was that there is a very apparent cinema-like flicker when viewing high def media. At least there was when I saw a demo of Cinderella Man on HD-DVD.

Post: #286623
Topic: A question about NTSC telecine
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/286623/action/topic#286623
Time: 14-May-2007 8:54 PM

I guess my next question would be, do the high definition formats get around this problem? I definitely found the flicker a whole lot more noticeable when I checked out the HD-DVD and Blu-ray demos, which led me to believe that it was a true 24p playback.

Post: #286580
Topic: A question about NTSC telecine
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/286580/action/topic#286580
Time: 14-May-2007 4:42 PM

So I was wondering,

When a 24 frame per second movie is telecined for NTSC, is the original playback speed faithfully preserved or is it running the slightest bit slower? It's just that I recently read the wiki entry for 24 fps to NTSC telecine and it said that because it's not 30 fps it's actually 29.97, the film has to be slowed from 24 to 23.976 fps in order for the original framerate to be redistributed across the NTSC framerate. All this time I thought NTSC actually preserved the original framerate! So which is it, 24 or 23.976?

Post: #286375
Topic: Bollywood Star Wars Rip Off (YouTube)
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/286375/action/topic#286375
Time: 12-May-2007 7:19 PM

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=2&threadid=7641

Post: #286353
Topic: What could have made the PT better?
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/286353/action/topic#286353
Time: 12-May-2007 2:47 PM

Another aspect of the backstory in making the PT is that of all the planets in that galaxy far, far away that we were yet to see, Lucas chose Tatooine, a planet that already overstayed its welcome in ROTJ. You could easily fan edit ROTJ to make Jabba's palace and the Pit of Carkoon on some other planet, It's not like they shot it in Tunisia anyway. Because of the choices Lucas made, the same could not quite be done for Tatooine in the PT. I could make a couple guesses at why he did this. One is for the convenience of Owen and Beru's backstories. The other is that maybe he just couldn't think up another planet that was different enough of an environment to justify not making it Tatooine. You've probably all seen those lists that people make. Bespin is clouds, Yavin is jungle, Hoth is ice, Dagobah is swamp, Endor is forest, etc.

Post: #286230
Topic: ROTS Disc: Who is Charlotte?
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/286230/action/topic#286230
Time: 11-May-2007 3:11 PM

Heh, I should've checked your info first. It's definitely from another factory if it's PAL.

Post: #286228
Topic: What could have made the PT better?
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/286228/action/topic#286228
Time: 11-May-2007 3:10 PM

On the other hand, this means that the PT is still just backstory and not the beginning of the story. Star Wars '77 will always be the beginning of the story, Empire the middle and Jedi the end. The PT was always going to be the backstory simply because it was made later, and much later at that. It's just funny since the prequels ended up making tons of money all the same.

Post: #286215
Topic: ROTS Disc: Who is Charlotte?
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/286215/action/topic#286215
Time: 11-May-2007 1:46 PM

Some have the actual ISO name on it and some don't. I'm guessing they're from different factories or something.

Post: #286209
Topic: for what it's worth.... a placeholder for the OT on blu-ray has been posted at amazon
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/286209/action/topic#286209
Time: 11-May-2007 11:48 AM

Digital Cinema is stuck at 2K anyway right now. In regards to technology stepping up, I recently read over at thedigitalforum that Van Ling was quoted as saying that the Abyss will not recieve an anamorphic transfer until its high def release. In regards to Star Wars, well, I don't think we should have to wait until any later than 2008 to get our anamorphic OOT. Whether or not we'll have to is another matter.

Post: #286090
Topic: for what it's worth.... a placeholder for the OT on blu-ray has been posted at amazon
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/286090/action/topic#286090
Time: 10-May-2007 5:42 PM

It might not be the last ten years that's done it, although seeing the original versions in 35mm would've been nice. Even '04 and '05 were pretty good for me so far as Star Wars goes.

The last year, that took its toll.

The GOUT is what would've been better off not existing. It's the lowest LFL has ever stooped. That said, it's not like the OOT is the only non-anamorphic release out there. Let us not forget the R1 releases of The Graduate. Nevertheless this is Star Wars, the most popular film series ever, and when LFL is shameless enough to put out something like the GOUT I just shake my head and ask why.

Post: #286080
Topic: ROTS Disc: Who is Charlotte?
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/286080/action/topic#286080
Time: 10-May-2007 4:00 PM

stolen from millenniumfalcon.com:

• "Charlotte" codename for ROTS.
• "Laura" codename for TPM.
• "Mary" = AOTC.
• "Eve (White)" = ANH SE.
• "Eve (Black)" = ESB SE.
• "Jane" = ROTJ SE.
• "Sunrise" The OUT release.

They're all named after 20th Century Fox titles.

Post: #286047
Topic: 2 More Star Wars Movies (For TV)
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/286047/action/topic#286047
Time: 10-May-2007 11:35 AM

For all we know, Lucas himself got the facts wrong. Maybe it's the mid-80's again and he's planning on doing tv movies in addition to series.