logo Sign In

Fang Zei

User Group
Members
Join date
14-Oct-2006
Last activity
26-Jun-2025
Posts
2,779

Post History

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?
Post
#259814
Topic
Family Guy Luke Skywalker
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/259814/action/topic#259814
Time
Originally posted by: Knightmessenger
Is the first shot of the exterior supposed to be a representation of the original or special edition scene? I'm reminded of only real good line from American Dad: "This is the man who persuaded George Lucas not to release a restored animorphic dvd of the original non special edition Star Wars Trilogy."


It was also oddly prophetic, since that was well before LFL's May announcement and the subsequent bad news.
Post
#259813
Topic
Legacy Of The Force - book series
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/259813/action/topic#259813
Time
LOTF is a series of Star Wars novels published by Del Rey. Currently it's up to book 3 with a total of 9 planned. It's the first story set in Lucasbooks's latest "era," the legacy era. Just to refresh everyone's memory, the other eras are Sith/Old Republic (25,000 to 1,000 years before the Battle of Yavin), Rise of the Empire/Prequel (1,000 to 0 years BBY), Classic (0 to 4 years after the Battle of Yavin), New Republic (4 to 25 ABY), The New Jedi Order (25 to 40 ABY) and finally Legacy (40 ABY and beyond).

You're welcome

Shadows of the Empire and The Thrawn Trilogy (well, some of it) are the only post-Yavin novels I've really read. Vector Prime, the first NJO novel, seemed like a must read because of all the hype surrounding it. After reading both it and onslaught, I skipped ahead to Balance Point (once it hit paperback) but just couldn't get into the story. Some day I'll figure out the best way to approach the post-ROTJ EU from scratch.

Recently I had an epiphany about the New Jedi Order series. It got a lot of criticism for being a little too different, but in the end I think Del Rey was trying to tell a story that could only be told in the medium of novels. Notice how there are no comics or video games set during the NJO?

I've heard from people reading Legacy of the Force that it tends to ignore many of the repercussions of the NJO's events which took place a mere decade earlier. The Legacy comic book series, which I have been keeping up with, takes place a century after the NJO and actually acknowledges from the get go how the galaxy far far away is still living with the aftermath of the NJO, ironic since Dark Horse was apparently planning an "invasion" storyline of its own before Lucasbooks scrapped it in favor of Del Rey's NJO, but I digress.

Speaking of the Legacy comics, anyone think that 100 year gap may be LFL opening up a possible time period for more movies????

I had a blast reading the Clone Wars books, and Labyrinth of Evil was probably the most fun I've had reading a Star Wars novel.
Post
#259651
Topic
See, George, This is how it's done ...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/259651/action/topic#259651
Time
Originally posted by: booah
Originally posted by: Fang Zei
I can understand how the SIII thing happenned


I can't. The contents are a disc from a 6-year-old release. How could there have been that many of the old versions of Superman III lying around like, right next to the new ones, that they not only stamped a new label on the old disc, but actually put it in the box set? It's pretty ridiculous. It's obvious that WB has little to no quality control. My friend said that on the Willy Wonka remake 2-Disc edition, one of the Oompa Loompa songs is missing a verse. Yet another WB slip-up among many...


Actually, allow me to rephrase that.

I don't understand how someone could've made the mistake so easily but I do understand why it happenned. No, they didn't just accidentally take unsold, unshipped copies of the old dvd and print out new disc art. What happenned was that when it came time to program the machines that would press the discs for the 14-disc set, whoever was in charge must have accidentally retrieved the wrong SIII file from WB's computer systems, thinking it was the new SIII disc when it was actually the old one. Whoever was in charge of the individual release, which is exactly what's also found in the 8 disc "Christopher Reeve" collection, did not make this mistake.

On a more Star Wars-related note, I remember people saying that the SE copies found in the '06 release were just overstocks from '04 and '05, but if that's true then why go through the trouble of printing new disc art labels for them?
Post
#259639
Topic
Has technology accelerated that much?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/259639/action/topic#259639
Time
Originally posted by: BeeJayWhy don't you believe the OOT had a proper release in September of this year?


Look at posts on these threads from on or after May 18th and you'll know why.

Labeling it as bonus content was one thing, fine, so we also have to buy the SE when we buy the original unaltereds. But that same press release from May 3rd also had Jim Ward saying, and I quote "We returned to the Lucasfilm Archives to search exhaustively for source material that could be presented on DVD. This is something that we're very excited to be able to give to fans in response to their continuing enthusiasm for Star Wars."

Sorry, but I really don't think they had to do all that much searching for a few master tapes from 1993. That line about our "continuing enthusiasm for Star Wars" makes it seem like none of us want the OOT on dvd for any reason beyond nostalgia and that we'll accept whatever quality it's in. To remind everyone here that I'm criticizing quality of presentation, not content, the SE is presented in anamorphic widescreen just like every other widescreen movie ever made is expected to be, but the OOT is not!

To give the altered version the expected standard treatment and to give the original unaltered a substandard treatment is not fair at all, is it?
Post
#259618
Topic
Has technology accelerated that much?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/259618/action/topic#259618
Time
As far as I'm concerned, the OOT has not seen a dvd release. Hopefully it will some day.

Hey, it took some other movies from Star Wars's era a long while to see decent dvd releases.

The original Dune dvd from '98 was non-anamorphic and single layer. Earlier this year they finally released a new dvd with a new transfer for both it and the longer television version, both dual layer, both anamorphic. It's all on one DVD-18.

The old Blade Runner dvd, while anamorphic, looks horrible by today's standards. It was only single layer and the picture itself had many issues to begin with. Again, this year also saw it getting updated with a new transfer on a dual layer disc.

Yet another update this year was the Brazil dvd. The old disc was non-anamorphic but this was finally reissued by Criterion.

Even "The Doors," a frequently used example of non-anamorphic dvd releases, is also finally getting an update.

Lucas just might make Star Wars part of a rather exclusive club....
Post
#259511
Topic
Has technology accelerated that much?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/259511/action/topic#259511
Time
Originally posted by: BeeJayThey started going back to do the SE around 1996, possibly very late 1995. That is my guess. If anyone can correct me on this, that is fine.

Lucas mentions the work being done for the SE in at least one of the Leonard Maltin interviews from the '95 Faces set.

Originally posted by: BeeJayFollowing my theory of what LucasFilm is doing, let's be safe and say that if the original negatives were brought out again sometime early this year of 2006. That is a solid 9+ years that the o-negative has been dormant somewhere. During nine years, many things can happen. More grime can stick itself to the film, (nothing is perfect, even the most safest things get damaged,) and the restored scenes they did for the SE could've been lost inside of the computers. Why not go back and start fresh? That has to be what the plan is.


Good God, I hope so.
Post
#259127
Topic
ANH screening with modelmaker Lorne Peterson...WHY ARE THEY SCREENING THE SE??
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/259127/action/topic#259127
Time
Originally posted by: BeeJay
The LaserDisc quality is not piss-poor quality, like a lot of people try to say. Of course it doesn't rank up with truly restored digital viewing, as it would have if they used the original negatives as the baseline for the September release.

By the same token, the old LaserDisc releases were rather crisp, don't you think?


Restoration has nothing to do with it. The GOUT has not been remastered.

The point is that an actual film screening of ANH is happenning to showcase Peterson's model work but it is the SE, which deleted some of his work.
Post
#258964
Topic
See, George, This is how it's done ...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/258964/action/topic#258964
Time
After various reports over the last several months of what to expect on the new S:TM dvd, it turns out that the 5.1 audio is actually suppossed to be the new 2001 remix but the 2.0 audio is not. The problem is that both tracks use the new 2001 remix, I don't know how this oversight occurred. All copies of S:TM theatrical are affected by this, so WB will be replacing that along with the aforementioned SIII.
Post
#258953
Topic
See, George, This is how it's done ...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/258953/action/topic#258953
Time
from The Digital Bits:

WHV tells me that corrected DVDs and sets will eventually find their way into stores (as a 'running' production change) once the current stock sells out. They'll have new SKU numbers to distinguish them from the current ones - don't know what those are yet.


this most definitely isn't the best possible way of going about it, but at least WB is doing something to correct the problem.