logo Sign In

Fang Zei

User Group
Members
Join date
14-Oct-2006
Last activity
24-Apr-2024
Posts
2,768

Post History

Post
#260478
Topic
Hey guys, Remember when Star wars had writing like this?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260478/action/topic#260478
Time
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
Did you see Empire of Dreams?


Yes, so Lucas had to be on the set supervising things. This is a lot different than what you said about Marquand having little to do with the movie. Lucas even says on the audio commentary that he was very impressed by Marquand's directorial skills and that he had a very good time working with him.
Post
#260466
Topic
Hey guys, Remember when Star wars had writing like this?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260466/action/topic#260466
Time
Originally posted by: JediRandy
Originally posted by: Guy Caballero
Look, I like the jagoff prequels, but this is Original Trilogy.com I just want a copy of it that looks as good as Cannonball Run 2. For the love of fuck, Gomer, Randy, Internet Police, can you leave me alone? Please? I'm begging you.


Honestly, how long can you talk about aspect ratios and subtitles being in the wrong place? It's got to get old sometime, isn't a little back-and-forth a bit more interesting?


Point taken, Randy, but you can't tell me that the treatment the OOT is recieving is fair. As long as you're for a remastering of the OOT, something that did not happen for the 9/12 release, then you have a place here. I'd think the same would go for everyone else on these boards.
Post
#260455
Topic
Hey guys, Remember when Star wars had writing like this?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260455/action/topic#260455
Time
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
When Lucas hires and pays for all the talent that "helped" him realize his vision, then it's his "work" to edit in any way he sees fit.

It's too bad Marquand isn't still around, but from most accounts he had very little to do with ROTJ.


It's his in a legal sense only, which is what I was saying. The work that everyone else did during pre-production, production and post-production is their's, not his. According to you, Marquand had little to do with ROTJ. Maybe Lucas should've thought of that before he blatantly gave him the director's credit when Lucas himself was producing the movie. Talk about re-negging on a decision...
Post
#260337
Topic
Hey guys, Remember when Star wars had writing like this?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260337/action/topic#260337
Time
At least when Spielberg first put close encounters on dvd he just said "this is it, I'm done." Warner Brothers has put the '91 director's cut of Blade Runner on dvd in good quality and are going to be doing the same for the theatrical version next year. Lucas, on the other hand, did nothing more than what the loyal preservationists have been doing for the past several years when he clearly could and should have done better. Instead, he's just going to keep illogically revising his own movies.
Post
#260332
Topic
Hey guys, Remember when Star wars had writing like this?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260332/action/topic#260332
Time
Yet another series of films got a nice archival treatment recently, the exorcist. All of the movies, all the versions presented in good quality. I hope Star Wars doesn't end up as the only great widescreen movie to recieve really sup-par treatment.

Zombie, I agree with you on the viewing of the saga. Either watch it I-VI or just IV-VI and nothing else.
Post
#260328
Topic
Has technology accelerated that much?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260328/action/topic#260328
Time
The tv is a regular 4:3 crt, not projection or anything like that. It has both component and composite inputs and I have both cables for the ps2, but I can't remember now if it was still connected via regular composite when I did that test or not. Next time I'm back at home (where the tv is) I'll have to try it again with both cables.

by the way, canofhumdingers, I heard somewhere that the newer slimline model outputs progressive dvd but the older models can't at all. Is this true?
Post
#260296
Topic
Hey guys, Remember when Star wars had writing like this?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260296/action/topic#260296
Time
Originally posted by: JediRandy
Originally posted by: Fang Zei
Originally posted by: JediRandy
the OOT was just reased on DVD...


as bonus material in non-anamorphic video to the 2004 SEs which Lucas is still trying to sell to us, this time individually.


been waiting for line to show up.


If future generations end up watching it on a 16:9 display, Greedo's subtitles will be cut off because the disc is non-anamorphic. Did you ever consider that?
Post
#260290
Topic
Has technology accelerated that much?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260290/action/topic#260290
Time
My ps2 is the 39001 model and I have a standard 4:3 television. A while back, just for kicks, I tried first setting the ps2 itself to 16:9 and then playing an anamorphic dvd, the 2004 ANH disc if you must know. The picture looked exactly the same, proper aspect ratio and everything. Then I tried going into the dvd display setup and changing the aspect that way. I couldn't change it to anything besides 4:3!

Does the ps2 just automatically detect what kind of television it's hooked up to and not let you change the setting? I didn't think something like that was possible.
Post
#260178
Topic
stupid question about the OOT DVD's
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260178/action/topic#260178
Time
Originally posted by: Darth_Evil
What's funny about that, IMO, Lucas seems to have treated the OOT on DVD with more respect than the SE. He let them crop the SE and mangle the picture ot fit a 4 by 3 display, but the OOT has not been released on DVD in fullscreen. It's kind of funny...


Those were my exact thoughts when it was confirmed the bonus disks would be widescreen only. When the non-anamorphic news broke back in late May, it was also a thought I had since fullscreen always has its market. Sure enough, several weeks ago I talked to someone who said they would not be buying the 9/12 release because the OOT was not in fullscreen!

When you stop and think about it, this adds one more layer to the issue. I mean, why didn't they bother with the fullscreen OOT? Weren't there also fullscreen laserdisk masters, or was the 1993 telecine just that much better than the others but only done in letterbox?
Post
#260153
Topic
Has technology accelerated that much?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260153/action/topic#260153
Time
Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen
Not all DVD players have such an option. The earliest ones do not ... just as the earliest DVDs were not anamorphic.


I see....

That's another thing I've always wondered.

Still, that wasn't much thought on the studio's part. I mean, those non-16:9 players could still at least downconvert the anamorphic video to 4:3, right?!

Guess it's just another excuse to sell us a better dvd years later that actually is enhanced for widescreen tv, but like I said, it's becoming harder and harder to find a widescreen movie that's only been released on non-anamorphic dvd. James Cameron's "The Abyss" is still in that club, I believe, so the OOT isn't entirely alone.
Post
#260144
Topic
Has technology accelerated that much?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260144/action/topic#260144
Time
Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen
There was a period after the advent of DVD and before the explosion of widescreen displays where movies were authored non-anamorphically in letterbox for DVD. Tons of widescreen and panavision films were issued on DVD in letterbox, before anamorphic became standard.


This is also part of what I was wondering. So you're saying some early widescreen dvd's were non-anamorphic simply because they were authored that way, even though an anamorphic transfer could've just as easily been made? Why wouldn't they make them "forward compatible?" Aren't all dvd players ever made capable of outputting to both 4:3 and 16:9?
Post
#260127
Topic
Has technology accelerated that much?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260127/action/topic#260127
Time
Originally posted by: VigoThe answer is: no. Every non-anamorphic transfer is either a non-widescreen movie, or the DVD was mastered using an old laserdisc/video master.


thank you

I was actually thinking of wierd situations like Artisan's first dvd release of "Frank Herbert's Dune" (the U.S. broadcast edit), back in 2001. It's presented 4:3 letterboxed (1.77:1), just as it was when it aired on scifi channel in December of 2000. Artisan must've simply used the same master used for the broadcast to make their dvd and not had any actual film source with which to make an anamorphic transfer. When it came time to do the Director's Cut in 2003, they did have the actual elements and thus made the dvd 16:9 enhanced.
Post
#260117
Topic
Hey guys, Remember when Star wars had writing like this?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260117/action/topic#260117
Time
Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
Hmm, it's weird. Being very familiar with the OT didn't cause me to hate the PT. I actually find it entertaining and enjoyable (for the most part) and most of my hatred for it comes from how it is utilized justify changes in the originals. I find it weird that seeing the PT first would cause someone to not enjoy the OT. I mean, is the whole thing really effects-driven?


I'd probably have a much easier time with the prequels if Lucas would just swallow his pride for a split second and actually acknowledge the OOT. His whole filmmaking/business philosophy during the mid to late 90's really hurt Stat Wars. Instead of being responsible and making his prequels to fit the originals, he changed the originals to fit the prequels before they were even made. Then, later on, he changed them even more and is bound to change them yet again. I'm sorry, but no amount of changes will ever link the originals to the prequels in an anywhere near seamless fashion.

Also, I'm really wondering what happenned between '95, when Lucas said that he'd be getting other people to direct the prequels, and '97 when he decided to do it all himself. That's just one of many things he could've done differently, but I think the biggest root of this problem tree is the SE release in '97.

EDIT: now that I think about it, he probably screwed himself out of ever getting anyone to direct the prequels after they saw what he'd done to the OT.

Star Wars in many ways belongs to the late 70's/early 80's in that it wasn't merely a product of that era but something that actually defined it. Maybe part of the problem with the prequels is that Lucas is so totally out of touch with the world and is still living in the 70's in his head, which is a bad combination. If the prequels had been made with late 90's/early 00's sensibilities by today's filmmakers it probably would've been much, much different.

I think it would've been best to leave episode IV as the only George Lucas directed film, it's pretty awkward now with I-IV bearing his name.
Post
#260110
Topic
Has technology accelerated that much?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260110/action/topic#260110
Time
Thank you for the info, Vigo, but that's not what my question was.

I'm just wondering if there are widescreen dvd's out there that were mastered from actual film elements but for some reason were presented on dvd 4:3 letterbox instead of anamorphically.

I understand how my question could easily have been misinterpreted, I was just trying to be as specific as I could by saying any movies that are 1.78:1 or wider.
Post
#260107
Topic
Has technology accelerated that much?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260107/action/topic#260107
Time
Now we can get back on topic...again.

I've been wondering something about widescreen movies that were not presented in anamorphic video on dvd. Does anyone have an example of one that was presented that way for some other reason besides it being made from laserdisk masters.

To make my question a little clearer or to ask it in a different way, are there widescreen (1.78:1 or wider) dvd's out there that were mastered from film elements but not presented in anamorphic video?