What is this on-screen keyboard you speak of...? Holy sit! Ohhhh! Wait? I swear I didn't plan that...
Well, unfortunately, I *ave a laptop, so all of t*at is inte*rated.
I am so mad tat sfdebris reviews are taken down from YouTube. Also makes me worry about my own Trek-related reviews...
I am so appy tat you are appy!
Wow. Can you believe Ive done tis for two years now? Well, in time for its anniversary, I present a new twist on an old classic:
I admit I haven't seen much of ady's work. What I have seen of it has blown me away. He's a great editor. The kind of editor I aspire to be. And the versions of the Star Wars movies he makes are amazing. But I'm sure he'd be the first to agree that his versions aren't the real Star Wars. They're certainly not the original Star Wars. So, no, if there was a new release touting a restored version of the original movies, and I received Ady's Revisited movies instead, I would most certainly not be happy.
Yeah, it seems they're vaguely aware, but they are entirely missing the point! I don't give a rat's ass about the PT. I don't care about ignoring it. I only barely care how many mediocre movies George Lucas attaches to the Star Wars name. The fact that he made the prequels doesn't bother me. I don't watch them too often, not nearly as often as I watch the original trilogy, but I can watch them, and I do enjoy them to a certain extent. The prequels existing, and me being disappointed by them, is not what the problem is. The problem has nothing to do with the prequels. The problem is that the original trilogy doesn't exist anymore. Sure, that problem is exacerbated by the fact that the only versions that do "exist" have prequel crap peppered throughout them, which makes it hard not to resent them. Just restore and release the original trilogy. And keep doing it consistently throughout the ages. Then I will shut up. It's as simple as that, George Lucas and the Lucas spawn.
Heh, this reminds me of the joke about transposing the word "ass" in descriptors like "badass" or "dumbass" to the word it's describing, giving it an entirely different (and hilarious) meaning.
After all, what's funnier: a "dumb-ass trap" or a "dumb ass-trap"?
I don't personally think branching is necessary or even the most intuitive solution. Just have the damned subtitles burned into the picture like they're supposed to be! If foreign languages are included in your releases, let those subtitle translations be in the subtitle track, and let them be in the matte. It's as simple as that. Everybody wins.
And if I was one of those foreign viewers, I'd prefer the ORIGINAL English crawl to be there, and let the translation for it be in the subtitle track as well.
But I'm just saying that if they go so far as to recreate the title crawl in every available language rather than simply going the easier route of translating them in the player-generated subtitle track, where's the logic that the film's subtitles (in its native language release no less) be in the player-generated subtitle track?
I guess I'm just saying I don't necessarily follow you when you say that foreign language barriers are the reason why the film's subtitles be player generated rather than hard coded.
But if the crawl is in foreign languages... obviously that's hardcoded into the picture and not player-generated. I mean, it seems to reason that you could either use alternate angles (preferred) or just have language-specific text hardcoded for each region.
But are we talking about language subtitle options accessible through the menu, or are we talking about subtitles that are actually a part of the film? For the former, I don't care how they make their subtitles as they're not actually a part of the movie. But for the latter, yes, it is extremely annoying.
xhonzi said:
This is kind of my thought process. To the outside world, we are an unsatiable group what will never be happy no matter what Lucas releases. The GOUT was obviously meant as a slap to the face, so we took it that way and weren't satisfied. But if something that looked and played like the originals was released- without it meeting every point on our list of demands, and we (the OOT demanding community) still demanded more- Well, I can hear the response now.
I think that's probably why we're taking this so seriously. I mean, think about it. Assuming that one day, Lucasfilm finally decides to cater to us, we're really only going to get once chance to have it done right. So the minutae is very important! I mean, think of how many (ignorant) people got on our cases for complaining about the GOUT. I mean, that's how it looked, right? They didn't have anamorphic back then, right? They wanted it untouched, right? So imagine they do cave one day and "restore" the trilogy... but recomposite everything. And, yes, I will be one of the many people bitching about it. And, of course, those same people will still just not get it. They said they wanted it restored! It's restored, and now they're bitching that it's not the original! Well, isn't that what they were complaining about with the 2006 DVDs?
As far as I see it, if they do it for us once, that's all we're going to get for the forseeable future, so it has to be right. And as far as I'm concerned, what anybody wants it to look like needs to take a back seat to simply making it as close as possible to how it did look like. The recomped shots already exist. If you really need those versions, you can always make an edit. But right now the greater need is for the REAL versions.
And now, something tangentially-related that I was thinking of last night: what about the subtitles? Lucasfilm's policy on those has always pissed me off. Why make them player-generated, aliasing-looking pieces of crap? Why place them outside of the frame?! For a true restoration, the subtitles need to be hard-coded into the picture, in their original font. It's amazing how Lucas can screw up even the simplest things...
And RE: S_Matt. I just want to make it clear that I at least am not intending any hostility towards you. With so many engaged in this discussion arguing against you, it can somewhat seem like you're being ganged up on, but that's not really the case. Like Harmy, though, it does really make me sad to think that this is what the term "film restoration" means to some people, and it does fill me with fear that we might get an announcement for a true release of the original trilogy, only for it to be filled with redone special effects. And then, more than ever, people will be convinced that this is what those groundbreaking special effects actually looked like.
CP3S said:
skyjedi2005 said:
For some Reason when Bob Z did the release for Back to the Future on DVD and blu ray however he refused to have the noticeable things like wires holding up marty mcly painted out.
I didn't know about that. I think I just fell in love with Robert Zemeckis. The first Back to the Future DVD set was fantastic and used to be what I wished the a Star Wars boxset of the OOT would be. Since then Blade Runner has replaced it at the top of my list of most amazing DVD sets of all time. Sounds like the trend is continuing into the BD realm.
Yep. In the Q&A commentary track, Laurent Bouzereau asks Zemeckis if he would be updating the films for the DVD release, and he point blank says that he hates when filmmakers do that. And that is the moment that I fell in love with him. In fact, for the DVD set, the Bobs purposely tried to bring it back closer to the theatrical print than the VHS releases had. They removed the "To Be Continued..." and subsequently retimed credits from the first film. There was an ADR of one of Doc's lines instituted for the VHS release that was reinstated to its original reading on the DVD. And they threw in the trailer for Part III at the end of Part II. Truly these are guys who know how to properly respect a film.
I would settle for any one of te oriinal mixes. Recompositin is a no-no.
All 3 oriinal mixes...
xhonzi said:
If the 1977-1983 versions were released, but without all of the sound tracks and with digital recomposits...
How many of you would still be signing petitions and crying foul? I know it's not what you'd prefer. But would you still fight the good (?) fight?
Yes. Definitely. It would still constitute a special edition.
S_Matt said:
but what about if a film's effects were compromised by an unrealistic schedule or studio politics?
To that I would say the same thing I would say to people who defend Star Trek V's problems in the same way: I'm sorry, but these things happen. They happen all the time. It even happens to me with the stupid little YouTube videos I make, where the limited processing power of my computer causes little imperfections that I didn't make but are nonetheless on display for all to see. And it drives me crazy. But the same can be said for all people who express themselves creatively. That's the reality of all artistic expression. There's always going to be some problem, be it studio executives, be it budget constraints, be it technology constraints, be it time constraints that are going to cause the final product to appear not quite as good as its creator envisioned it. And it will annoy those creators. And eventually that choice will rear its ugly head: do you just accept this as a consequence of the field, or do you go back and "fix" it? And that's where the slippery slope begins...
I consider myself realistic about it too, and the reality of it is that, yes, the effects artists did have to live with imperfections in their work. And they have to deal with different imperfections today. As has been said countless times: warts and all. I don't care if it's an artistic choice at all. It is what it is. Those imperfections may not look great, may not be perfect, but they are a part of the film and need to be there.
zombie84 said:
Removing grain and fixing matte lines is altering the aesthetic of the film and fixing matte lines is altering both the aesthetic and content of the film. Dirt and scratches are instances of foreign objects attaching themselves to the film and damage to the film, and therefore should be removed.
This. Of course I want the matte lines. Of course I want the reduced opacity in the snow battle. That's simply how they had to do things back then. It's a perfect example of how special effects filmmaking worked then. When I first became aware of the opacity thing as a kid (ironically, through the SE doc), I thought that was so fascinating the compromise they had to make. Doing away with stuff like that, the effects of the compositing, would certainly not make it the original version in my book.
Eh. I strongly dislike the changes in the prequels too.
adywan said:
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=982&post=7407&uid=169299103121699#post7407
Eww. Reading that guy's posts makes my skin crawl. He's just unbelievably creepy. If it had been anyone else, I would have assumed it was just hyperbole, but when he said he "seriously almost killed himself" over TPM, I'm tempted to believe him...
I always think about that whenever Star Wars comes up, because, honestly, when talking to laypeople about the issue, it's almost inevitable that something negative will come up, and I do tend to think about how weird that must sound to people. But even outside of Star Wars, I've always been of a mind that fans should think critically and not just blindly love and support everything that comes out.
Wow. I think I am too!
That makes me wonder? Do Lucas's kids choose to be as delusional as they are towards the subject (in order to understandably defend their father), or has George been so staunch in his views brainwashing that they honestly do not know any better? I mean, as far as I can tell, only Amanda was alive during the filming of any of the OT (just a baby during ROTJ), so they could easily just believe everything he tells them and seriously believe that Han never shot first... I'm not entirely sure how THAT one would get by them, but still...